ORDER : Ashok Kumar Gaur, J. The petitioner, who was working as Conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 23.11.1998 (Annex.5) passed by Chief Manager, Sardarshahar Depot, District Churu whereby the petitioner has been punished with a penalty of Rs. 18720/- on account of the charge levelled against the petitioner in respect of loss of ticket book and way bill, given to him. The petitioner has also challenged the office order dated 24.04.1987 (Annex.6) where directions have been given in respect of actions to be taken against employees in respect of loss of ticket book, etc. The petitioner is also aggrieved by charge-sheet dated 13.07.1995 (Annex-2). 2. Brief facts of the case are that while petitioner was working as a Conductor on the route of Salasar-Hissar, the petitioner and driver parked their vehicle at 7:30 p.m. on 11.04.1987 at Hissar Bus Stop and after parking their bus, the petitioner and driver went to have their dinner. The petitioner had kept the ticket books and way bill in the tool box and carried the cash with him. It is the case of the petitioner that there was no lock system in the tool box and as such, there was no way of having proper safety of the articles kept in the tool box. The petitioner had pleaded that after taking food when they returned, they found the ticket books, way bill and their blankets, missing from the tool box. The petitioner had lodged an FIR of said incident on the same day at 9:15 p.m. at Police Station Hissar. The Hissar Police did not take any action. On the next day i.e. 12.04.1987 when the bus returned from Hissar to Sardarsahar, the petitioner informed the Depot Manager and also lodged an FIR at Police Station Sardarshahar. 3. The Depot Manager of Sardarshahar without holding any enquiry and even affording opportunity of hearing, passed an order dated 08.11.1987 for effecting recovery from the salary of the petitioner on account of alleged loss caused to the Corporation. 4. The petitioner filed a civil suit for injunction and declaration before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ratangarh, District Churu. The Civil Court after recording evidence of parties, decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 01.05.1995. 4. The petitioner filed a civil suit for injunction and declaration before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ratangarh, District Churu. The Civil Court after recording evidence of parties, decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 01.05.1995. The operative portion of the judgment is reproduced as hereunder :- vkns'k vr% oknh dk okn izfroknhx.k ds fo:) fuEu izdkj ls fM+dzh fd;k tkrk gS fd%& d & ;g ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS fd fookfnr vkns'k dzekad 4631 fnuakd 18-11-1987 izn'kZ 5 oknh ds eqdkcys voS/k] 'kwU; o fu"izHkkoh gSA [k & ;g fd izfroknhx.k dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd vkns'k izn'kZ 5 dh vuqikyuk esa oknh ls fdlh izdkj dh dksbZ olwyh ugha dh tkosaA x & izfroknhx.k dks ;g vf/kdkj fn;k tkrk gS fd os fof/kuqlkj leqfpr izfdz;k viuk dj okn esa of.kZr ?kVuk ds laca/k esa vko';d tkap djus ds i'pkr oknh ds fo:) leqfpr vko';d dk;Zokgh djus ds fy;s Lora= gksxsaA ?k & izdj.k dh izd`fr dks ns[krs gq, i{kdkj viuk&2 [kpkZ Lo;a ogu djsaxsaA 5. The petitioner was hopeful that the respondent-employer will be bound by the judgment and decree and no action will be taken against him, however, the hope of the petitioner was short-lived. The respondent-Corporation served a charge-sheet dated 13.07.1995 (Annex.2) wherein it was communicated that due to negligence of the petitioner while on duty on 11.04.1987, he lost the ticket books and as such, amount of Rs. 18720/- was to be recovered from him, which included the costs of tickets and way bill. The details of the ticket book and their serial number were also given in the charge-sheet. The petitioner filed reply and submitted that petitioner was guilty of causing any loss to the Corporation and on the contrary, he had taken immediate steps of lodging FIR at Hissar as well as at Sardarshahar. The petitioner further submitted in his reply that in the vehicle concerned, there was no system of putting the lock on the tool box and as such, the petitioner requested that he should be held guilty in the departmental enquiry initiated against him. 6. The petitioner further submitted in his reply that in the vehicle concerned, there was no system of putting the lock on the tool box and as such, the petitioner requested that he should be held guilty in the departmental enquiry initiated against him. 6. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry against the petitioner and it was found that though FIR was lodged by the petitioner, however, it was responsibility of the petitioner to keep the ticket books and way bill in proper custody, and ticket books & way bill are treated as cash as per the Circular dated 24.04.1987. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report by observing that petitioner was guilty of the charge levelled against him and as such, submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. 7. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.11.1998 (Annex.5) had agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and found that petitioner had committed negligence in keeping the ticket book and way book in a tool box and he ought to have put a lock on the tool box in order to maintain the safety of these two items. The Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of Rs. 18,720/- on the petitioner and recovery of Rs. 600/- per month from the salary of the petitioner, was also made as per the penalty order. 8. Mr. Prem Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that charge-sheet to the petitioner under Clause 34(i) of the RSRTC Standing Orders, 1965 was wrongly issued, as the Standing Orders only provides in Clause 34(i), the misconduct being committed by any person if there has been dishonesty, fraud, theft, malpractice or misappropriation of cash or property, is committed by an employee. The relevant Clause of Regulation 34(i) is reproduced as hereunder :- "34. The following acts and omission shall be treated as misconduct:- (i) Dishonesty, fraud, theft, malpractice or misappropriation of cash or property." 9. Mr. Sharma submits that the Standing Order, which has been issued on 24.04.1987 in respect of loss of ticket book, etc., the procedure has been given to take action by the person concerned by lodging FIR immediately and in case, such action is taken, the disciplinary proceedings can also be initiated. Mr. Mr. Sharma submits that the Standing Order, which has been issued on 24.04.1987 in respect of loss of ticket book, etc., the procedure has been given to take action by the person concerned by lodging FIR immediately and in case, such action is taken, the disciplinary proceedings can also be initiated. Mr. Sharma submits that the petitioner had reported about alleged incident of loss of ticket book and way bill immediately on the same day at Hissar and further on next day, he reported the same incident at Police Station Sardarshahar and as such, even as per Standing Order dated 24.04.1987, the petitioner could have been issued charge-sheet. Mr. Sharma further submits that until there is allegation of fraud or misuse of tickets, imposition of penalty on such ground, cannot be sustained. 10. Mr. Sahrma has further relied upon the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Ch. P. Reddy S/o Venkat Reddy v. A.P. State Road Transport Corpn., and Anr., reported in 2000 LAB I.C. 3489. Mr. Sharma submits that Andhra Pradesh High Court has considered the similar provisions of penalties in respect of Corporation's employees and the Court has interpreted that if the Corporation does suffer loss of any amount which the ticket could fetch if they were sold to the passengers, it cannot be said that there is pecuniary loss by an employee's negligence and the amount lost by the Corporation cannot be recovered. The Court has further held that in no case, an amount more than the amount which was lost by the Corporation by way of printing, etc. can be recovered from the negligent official. 11. Mr. N.S. Rathore, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent has submitted that the orders passed by the Authorities are valid & legal and has submitted that this Court may interfere in the present writ petition as recovery has already been effected against the employee concerned and there is no interim order passed by this Court. Mr. Rathore further submits that it was duty of the petitioner to maintain the security of all the documents, which were given to the delinquent-petitioner and loss of ticket books & way bill is a serious misconduct which reflects negligence of the petitioner. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. Mr. Rathore further submits that it was duty of the petitioner to maintain the security of all the documents, which were given to the delinquent-petitioner and loss of ticket books & way bill is a serious misconduct which reflects negligence of the petitioner. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. The various misconducts have been enumerated in the RSRTC Standing Orders 1965, Regulation 34(i) only provides about misconduct committed by delinquent if he works dishonestly, commits fraud, theft, malpractice or misappropriation of cash or property. The Court finds that there is no such charge against the petitioner that he committed any of these acts. The Court is of the opinion that the petitioner had taken the step of lodging FIR at two places without any delay and as such, even as per the Standing Orders of the Corporation, the required action was taken by the petitioner and as such, it cannot be alleged against the petitioner that he was negligent in discharging his duties. The Court further finds that it is the case of the Corporation that on account of loss of ticket books and way bill, any loss has been caused to the Corporation. The valuation of tickets which were lost, had resulted into fetching the amount from the passengers and as such, the petitioner could have been made liable for such imaginary loss which Corporation thought while passing the impugned order. 14. The Court further finds that the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ch. P. Reddy s/o Venkat Reddy v. A.P. State Road Transport Corpn. and Anr. (supra), the Andhra Pradesh High Court has considered the pari materia provision relating to misconduct with respect to recovery of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee's negligence or breach of orders. The relevant portion of the order of the Court is reproduced as hereunder :- "3. The learned Counsel for the respondents, however states that, since the tickets were lost it is known whether they were used at all and in case they were used then the Corporation might have suffered the loss. This argument cannot be accepted because the numbers of the tickets which were lost must be known to the Corporation and had they been misused, it could have come to their notice. This argument cannot be accepted because the numbers of the tickets which were lost must be known to the Corporation and had they been misused, it could have come to their notice. It appears that the respondents have even the apprehension that the tickets could be or were used because, then the charge sheet would reflect it. The charge is essentially of losing the tickets. The petitioner cannot be punished for any other charge. I have also gone through the CCA Regulations. The penalties are prescribed under Regulation 8 of the Regulations. When it was pointed out to the learned Counsel for the respondents as to under which regulation the petitioner has been punished, she referred to clause (v) of Regulation 8 which lays down : "8. Penalties :- (1) The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reason and as hereinafter provided, be imposed upon an employee, namely; (i) to (iv)...... (v) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by an employee's negligence or breach of orders;" Under this provision, if the Corporation faces a pecuniary loss by an employee's negligence the amount lost by the Corporation can be recovered wholly or partly. In no case, an amount more than the amount which was lost by the Corporation can be recovered from the negligent official. Therefore, clause (v) of Regulation 8 also does permit the Corporation to impose a penalty which is more than the amount of the loss the Corporation has suffered. Admittedly, in this case the respondents have suffered loss of the amount which the tickets could fetch if they were sold to the passengers travelling in the buses. They have only suffered the loss which was incurred by the Corporation in their printing and stacking, that cost is also given in the impugned order. The Corporation has suffered a loss of Rs. 400/- towards printing value and Rs. 284/- on account of the cost of the tray, that makes it Rs. 684/- and this Court while entertaining the writ petition had allowed the respondents to recover Rs. 1500/- from the petitioner." 15. The Court does find any substance in the submission raised by Mr. Rathore that petitioner was negligent and he ought to have been visited with penalty. 284/- on account of the cost of the tray, that makes it Rs. 684/- and this Court while entertaining the writ petition had allowed the respondents to recover Rs. 1500/- from the petitioner." 15. The Court does find any substance in the submission raised by Mr. Rathore that petitioner was negligent and he ought to have been visited with penalty. The Court finds that the alleged misconduct against the petitioner is in respect of loss to the Corporation and further, the Authorities have termed it to be misconduct under Clause 34(i) of the RSRTC Standing Orders, 1965. 16. In the opinion of the Court, the order passed by the Authorities suffers from legal infirmity and as such, required to be set aside and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, the charge-sheet dated 13.07.1995 (Annex.2) and punishment order dated 23.11.1998 (Annex.5) are quashed and set aside. 18. The respondents are further directed to refund the amount to the petitioner, which has been recovered in pursuance of the penalty order dated 23.11.1998, within a period of two months. 19. The writ petition stands allowed according.