Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. It was vehemently urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had not received fare from the 20 passengers and, therefore, no inference of dishonest intention can be drawn against him but at best it would be a case of negligence amounting to minor misconduct only for which penalty of termination of service would be too harsh and excessive. The question, therefore, arises what is dishonesty, when and under what circumstances an inference of dishonesty may legitimately be drawn. It may be noted that whoever does any thing with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another, it amounts to dishonesty. In other words the term "dishonesty" is relatable to an advantage to which a party perpetrating a deceit is not legally entitled to. There can be no dispute that it is difficult to establish dishonesty by any direct evidence. The question whether a person had any dishonest intention or not while doing or omitting to do an act has to be judged and inferred from the facts and circumstances of each case. The intention is a internal and invisible act of mind which could be judged or ascertained only from external and visible acts. In our opinion, therefore, the mere fact that the conductor recovered or did not recover the fare from passengers would not by itself be enough and a deciding factor to draw an inference this way or that way but an inference of dishonesty has to be drawn on consideration of totality of all the attending facts and circumstances appearing in a given case. For example, if the bus had travelled only a very short distance from where the passengers boarded and the checkers arrived and the conductor was in process of issuing the tickets and in fact had issued tickets to some of them, then in that event inference of dishonesty may not be drawn and it may be regarded as an act of negligence or carelessness amounting to minor misconduct. But in a case as one in hand where the conductor was found carrying a large number of passengers without tickets, the bus had travelled a long distance and yet the tickets were not issued though the conductor had ample time to do so and the explanation given by the conductor/petitioner was found to be totally baseless and false, the inference of dishonesty would be reasonable and fully justified, as dishonesty may also be inferred from false accounting of fact or an incident, as well, as from absence of bona fides. The observation and experience enable the Court to judge intention from men's conduct and behaviour and there does not arise much difficulty in inferring from his conduct as to what was his real intention upon any given occasion.

7. It may also be pointed here that the expression that if the bus conductor had not recovered the fare from passengers found travelling without tickets, then the inference of dishonesty cannot be drawn, has in fact, instead of having the effect of improving the bus-conductor and discipline as honest employees of the Corporation, has on the contrary, provided them an inducement and a safeguard inasmuch as they have now developed a practice not to recover the fare from passengers who are allowed to travel in the bus without tickets, at the time of their entrance in the bus or mid way but at the place where they step down from the bus at the end of their journey so as to evade and exclude the danger of being checked after recovery of fare and if ultimately checked, at some point then to come forward with the usual defence that since he had not recovered the fare no intention of dishonesty can be attributed to him and thus escape safely or at the most with a punishment for minor misconduct. Thus after engaging our serious thought and on overall consideration of the matter, we find that there is absolutely no merit in this petition and it deserves to be dismissed.