charge memo, he has not taken this stand. For the first time, he has marked a copy of the letter of Chandru as Ex.D.1 before the Enquiry Officer and the Management had submitted the entire proceedings with Ex.D.1 to the Labour Court, where, it was again re-marked as Ex.M.11 instead of delinquent's document. What is surprising to this Court is, as to how the petitioner got a copy of the letter that is said to have been sent by one Chandru, a passenger, to the Management. The said Chandru was not examined before the Enquiry Officer or the Labour Court. In the said letter of Chandru, he has stated that he boarded the bus at Thittai and alighted at Patteeswaram. In the cross-examination of Baskaran (MW 1 before the Enquiry Officer), the petitioner has specifically made a suggestion that when the bus reached its final destination, viz., Kumbakonam, a passenger demanded balance amount of Rs.17.50, but, the Checking Inspector had refused to give it and had shown it as excess in his cash bag. Thus, in the letter of Chandru, it is stated that he got down at Patteeswaram without collecting Rs.17.50 from the petitioner/conductor, but, the petitioner has pleaded that a quarrel ensued between the passenger and the checking staff at the destination point, viz., Kumbakonam, for refund of Rs.17.50. Truth requires no memory, unfortunately, lie would get exposed due to failing memory. Both the Enquiry Officer and the Labour Court have given sound reasons to disbelieve Chandru's letter (Ex.D1 before the Enquiry Officer and Ex.M.11 before the Labour Court) and this Court has no reasons to disagree with those findings. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the enquiry proceedings and findings given by the Enquiry Officer.
