respondent. In fact, on his way back in the next trip, he was issued with two new ticket books at Ottanchatram Depot. If really there were no intimation authorities at the Ottanchatram Depot would not have readily come forward to issue the two new ticket books to the respondent. The fact that the respondent made police complaint immediately after the conclusion of duty hours on 26.04.1992 also impresses us to hold that the respondent took all diligent steps to duly inform the appellant about the loss of the tickets. In this context, while we peruse the proceedings referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant namely, the proceedings dated 26.06.1991 and 5.8.1991, we find that the cumulative effect of the proceedings were to ensure that necessary enquiry should be done in case where loss of unused ticket books is reported, either to defraud the appellant Corporation or such reporting discloses that the concerned conductor was diligent in performance of his duty and the loss of ticket books were beyond his control and at the instance of some other extraneous circumstances or by other unscrupulous persons. Therefore, if such was the contemplation of the appellant Corporation, in adopting such a course of holding an enquiry, in respect of the loss of unused ticket books is reported, we are of the view that the very purpose would be defeated if the recovery of the value of unused ticket books is automatically made whenever loss is reported. In fact, subsequently in 1995 Settlement namely Clause 29 of the said Settlement makes it clear that in the event of loss of ticket books is reported by way of complaint to the police and such loss had occurred due to accident, theft or robbery, no recovery should be made from the concerned Conductor. The same point of view was very much existing in the earlier proceedings when
