lost, qua the same, there is no misuse and further Corporation should not suffer any loss. Assistant Regional Manager was obliged to make enquiry with all fairness and submit his report within next two weeks and further to inform each and every concerned Traffic Inspector/Traffic Superintendent about the series and number of tickets, and further the officers proceeding for checking were also to be apprised of series and number of tickets. Idea behind the same is that tickets which have been lost should not be misused and no loss is caused to the Corporation. However, in the present case no such steps, whatsoever, had been undertaken and after a lapse of about five years, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. It is well settled that if some duty is cast on the authority, then such duty should be performed within reasonable time. Here in the present case, for five years the respondents slept over the matter and after five years proceeded to issue show cause notice without giving any reasonable justification for the same. Respondents at no point of time cared to see as to whether show notice was served on the petitioner or not. Petitioner has made specific submission that show cause notice dated 22.08.2005 was received by him on 03.09.2005 after the date fixed was over i. e. 01.09.2005 and in the meantime Assistant Regional Manager proceeded to pass the order on 04.09.2005. As far as order passed by Assistant Regional Manager is concerned, the same is totally violative of principles of natural justice. Assistant Regional Manager proceeded on presumption that no reply had been filed, as such averments mentioned in the show cause notice is nothing but gospel truth. Assistant Regional Manager never tried to verify as to whether show cause notice had been received or not, and reasonable opportunity was there or not. Regional Manager, in the present case has also passed order on mere surmises and conjectures. Sustaining of pecuniary loss to the Corporation is condition precedent before proceeding to impose minor penalty of recovery of the amount from salary. On mere presumption that petitioner is responsible for loss of tickets, minor penalty has been imposed. The fact of the matter is that no enquiry , whatsoever, had been conducted to assess the pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation by negligence or breach of order. The Compendium of Tickets, relevant extract of which has been quoted above, clearly mentions in negative language that recovery shall not be feasible wherein thorough inquiry without there being any doubt it was proved that loss of ticket was mere accident and tickets had not been misused. In the said inquiry burden to prove beyond reasonable doubt that loss of ticket was merely an accident is on the delinquent employee, whereas burden to prove that tickets have been misused is on U.P.S.R.T.C. as they have with them full fledged machinery to check that tickets which have been lost, have been misused and the extent of loss caused to the corporation, on account of said fact. After thorough inquiry is conducted on this front, then on the basis of conclusion/finding arrived, the concerned authority is to proceed as per Regulation 65. Regulation 65 also clarifies this situation and empowers the Appointing Authority or any other Authority empowered by the Board to exercise such authority on being satisfied that there is enough and appropriate reason to proceed. After recording this satisfaction as per Regulation 65 (2) charges are to be informed, and delinquent is to be asked to submit his reply, and thereafter Authority concerned is empowered to pass appropriate order, and where punishment is to be awarded then reasons are to be recorded. Enough and appropriate reason qua loss of tickets is clearly referable to material collected in thorough inquiry conducted on Administrative side. This view will harmonise the provisions as contained in Compendium of Ticket Manual along with provisions of Regulation 65, and the contrary view will
