' The order dated 30th September, 1984 granting permission to dismiss the petitioner is said to be wrong.
2. The allegation was that the appellant had with the help of the driver forged road test pass for Bus No, 9621 and took the bus out of the yard for 20 minutes. No inquiry was held on the plea that the petitioner had admitted his guilt before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer was not examined before the learned lower Court to prove the fact that the petitioner had made confession before him, nor the so-called confession/ admission was put to him. As a matter of fact, none of the parties produced any evidence before the learned lower Court. In the alleged confession a word is decipherable. In the said statement had been put to the petitioner, he may have explained the confession if he had admitted the statement. The charge-sheet suggests that no loss was caused to the respondent and only attempt to cause loss was made. To make an attempt to cause loss does not amount to misconduct. However, if the petitioner admits his confession question may arise if the forgery stands proved or not. The case thus needs further inquiry.
3. As a result, the revision is accepted and setting aside the impugned decision of the learned lower Court, the case is remanded with the direction that after affording proper opportunity to the parties to produce evidence, the matter of giving permission be redecided. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.