that before the date of
incident i.e. 14.9.1990 when checking was conducted, old tickets were
taken from the concerned Conductor. To say so, reliance ... where he found that the passengers
were travelling without tickets at the time of checking could not
be considered as hearsay evidence. It was accordingly
show that
on 17.11.2001, while the bus was checked and two passengers had alighted
without tickets by the inspecting team and the said passengers ... next date, the bus was again checked on
18.11.2001, by a checking team and 17 passengers alighted, without tickets but
had paid `85/- @ `5/- each
Ellenabad under
the influence of liquor he carried out the checking of
tickets of passengers while on train escort duty being
VARINDER SINGH
passengers which he could have
misappropriated. The tickets had not been compared with the already sold
tickets and thus, an adverse inference was drawn against ... them less value tickets @ `8/- each and having three
punches each and one old ticket of `1/- and accordingly, the old tickets of
`121/- were
issued tickets of less value to
them. In all you had charged Rs. 181/- from the
alleged passengers and issued less tickets ... they were traveling
with tickets of less value. Even if, the plaintiff
allegedly had run away from the place of checking,
the checking staff should
from the
passengers and he issued tickets of less denomination.
Statements of all the concerned inspectors, who checked the
record with the plaintiff ... said that his report was based
on no legal evidence. When the tickets issued by the plaintiff
were found to be of less denomination, there
ticket booklet containing tickets of
denomination of `10/- each pertaining to route falling in Himachal
Pradesh in his way bill. In the checking ... checked by the checking staff, then the petitioner would have
easily re-sold the said tickets after getting them back from the
passengers. Allegation
centre,
Panipat. It is alleged that the plaintiff never came for medical
check-up and deliberately continued with the pregnancy.
On the pleadings ... defendant No.6 for routine check-up, she would have got the Out
Door Ticket. Defendant No.6 appeared as DW1 and stated that
Checking
Staff, the plaintiff was charge sheeted vide order dated 13.12.2000 by the
General Manager on the allegation that the plaintiff had not issued tickets ... plaintiff were vague as no copy of the complaint of the
Checking Staff was supplied to the plaintiff and the General Manager,
without enquiring
checked by the Inspectorate Staff and the staff
falsely reported that the plaintiff did not issue tickets to ten passengers who
boarded bus from Phillaur
