ORDER : In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs. (i) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ order or direction to quash the award dated 13.12.2013 in Ref No.163/2008 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore (Annexure-D). (ii) Such other writ order or direction that this Hon’ble Court deems just and expedient in the circumstances of the case. 2. The respondent, while working as a Conductor in the Arasikere Unit, was on duty with vehicle bearing No.F-944, which was plying through Hassan to Mylara route on 22.08.2004, the Inspecting Squad inspected the vehicle at about 19-15 hours at Duggavathi and found certain discrepancies in not issuing tickets and collected fare of Rs.6/-each from 10 passengers towards traveling from Harihara to Duggavathi, he had also failed to issue tickets to two passengers who were traveling from Harihara to Telegi and he had also failed to collect chargeable fare of Rs.8/-from those passengers and that he had not closed the entry of 40th stage. 3. On the alleged aforesaid allegations, the charge memo was issued on 16.09.2004 and he was punished in a domestic enquiry while withholding one increment without cumulative effect, which was the subject matter of Reference No.163/2008-A before the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore. The Reference was allowed and the order of punishment dated 31.03.2006 is set-aside and it was further held that the respondent is entitled to all the withheld benefits pursuant to the punishment order. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Mysore, the petitioner – Corporation has presented this petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that it is an admitted fact that the respondent had not issued tickets as is evident from the fact that the Inspecting Squad had imposed penalty fare from the ticket less passengers vide Ex.M.3, who were traveling from Harihara to Duggavathi and so also Way Bills vide Ex.M.5, which determined that the respondent had committed alleged misconduct as stated in the charge memo. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the aforesaid factual aspects. In absence of the analysis of the aforesaid Ex.M.3 and Ex.M.5, the Tribunal has committed error in allowing the reference and set-aside the penalty order. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Tribunal has not appreciated the aforesaid factual aspects. In absence of the analysis of the aforesaid Ex.M.3 and Ex.M.5, the Tribunal has committed error in allowing the reference and set-aside the penalty order. The Tribunal proceeded to pass an award on the score that the passengers were not examined and the persons who were actually checked the respondent while he was on duty viz., Sri.K.R.Nagaraj and Mohammed Noorulla. On the other hand, the custodian of the record by name Smt.Bebibai was examined. The custodian of the record is sufficient to examine and cross-examine in a domestic enquiry and not the persons, who are the authors of the Inspecting Squad. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that non-examination of the Checking Inspecting Squad viz., Sri.K.R.Nagaraj and Mohammed Noorulla in the present case vitiates the entire proceedings. Hence, there is no infirmity in the award passed by the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that non-examination of the relevant witnesses is fatal to the case of the petitioner Corporation. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 9. The question for consideration in the present petition is, whether non-examination of the Checking Inspector Squad vitiates the enquiry proceedings or not? Even though Exs.M.3 and 5 are the material evidence against the respondent, at the same time, the Author of the Inspecting Squad viz., Sri.K.R.Nagaraj and Mohammed Noorulla who are the prime witnesses to the present case have not been examined and cross-examined. On the other hand, the custodian of the record namely Smt.Bebibai was examined and cross-examined. The Apex Court in the case of S.C.GIROTRA VS. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK (UCO BANK) reported in 1995 SUPP(3) SCC 212 (para Nos.3 & 4) it is held as under; “3. Admittedly, the disciplinary authority while making the order of dismissal stated as under: “The presenting officer has submitted 28 exhibits, most of which are in the form of certificates of Shri Rajinder Paul and B.B. Bhatia, Officer and the then Assistant Manager of the branch, while one document (PEX-26) is in the form of inspection/investigation report of Shri V.P. Jindal and Shri J.R. Sharma. The certificates and inspection-cum-investigation report are most comprehensive documents. Inspection-cum-investigation report has been prepared by two senior officers of the then Division Office, Punjab Division, Chandigarh, after their painstaking efforts of about two months. The certificates and inspection-cum-investigation report are most comprehensive documents. Inspection-cum-investigation report has been prepared by two senior officers of the then Division Office, Punjab Division, Chandigarh, after their painstaking efforts of about two months. This has been substantiated by various certificates of the two officers of the branch. All the four officers appeared before the Enquiry Officer and testified to their authorship of the documents. Their certificates/Inspection-cum-Investigation Report comprehensively cover all the allegations/charges made/levelled in the charge-sheet. They have also been supported by other documents.” From the above extract it is clear that the report on which reliance was placed by the disciplinary authority was a comprehensive document in which conclusions were reached against the appellant on the basis of materials including the books and records of the bank as well as some certificates issued by officers of the bank which constituted evidence in support of the charges levelled against the appellant. It is also clear that no opportunity was given to the appellant to cross-examine either the makers of that report, Mr. V.P. Jindal and Mr J.R. Sharma or the officers who had granted such certificates which formed evidence to prove the charges which led to the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, even though those persons were examined for the purpose of proving the documents relating to them. In our opinion, the grievance made by the appellant that refusal of permission to cross-examine these witnesses was denial of reasonable opportunity of defence to the appellant, is justified. 4. It has also been urged by the learned Counsel for the appellant that certain witnesses who were officers of the bank and whom the appellant wanted to examine in his defence could not be examined because the management required the appellant to produce those witnesses without rendering any assistance for procuring their presence even though officers of the bank were amenable only to control of the bank's management. However, the appellant could not specify the name of any such persons in response to our query at the hearing. This grievance does not, therefore, merit any consideration.” In view of the aforesaid Apex Court decision what is relevant is the Author of the document is to be examined and cross-examined. In the present case, the Inspecting Squad persons have not been examined and cross-examined and it is undisputed. This grievance does not, therefore, merit any consideration.” In view of the aforesaid Apex Court decision what is relevant is the Author of the document is to be examined and cross-examined. In the present case, the Inspecting Squad persons have not been examined and cross-examined and it is undisputed. In view of these facts and circumstances, the petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the award dated 13.12.2013 passed in Ref.No.163/2008 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal at Mysore vide Annexure-D. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.