Y. BHASKAR RAO, C. J. ( 1 ) HEARD both sides. Delay condoned. ( 2 ) THIS appeal is filed assailing the order of the learned Single Judge modifying the award of the labour Court. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent was appointed as a conductor in KSRTC and he was on probation. On 16-9- 1984. when the bus which was conducted by the 1st respondent was checked by the authorities at about 9. 50 a. m. , it was found that he had failed to issue two tickets of 30 paise to 2 passengers, and again at 10. 30 a. m. when the bus was checked, he had kept blank the way bill entry against Stage No. 3 in respect of 30 paise denomination tickets with an ulterior motive to collect back and reissue the tickets. Therefore, charges were framed and domestic enquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. In the domestic enquiry, he has admitted the guilt. When the matter was referred to the Labour Court, the Labour court found that the charges are proved. But, however, taking into consideration that the respondent 1 was on probation and was without job from 2-12-1985, directed reinstatement into service with full back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge has modified the award directing reinstatement with only 25% back wages. Assailing that, present appeal is filed. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation contended that the charges are proved. The labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the dismissal order especially when it was found that he had not issued two tickets and on the second charge he was found to have kept blank the way bill entry with an ulterior motive of reissuing the tickets. Reissuing tickets is a grave misconduct. It is misappropriation of Corporation money making the people travelling in the bus as if they are issued tickets. Whenever a conductor is caught, then only such irregularities could be found and it is not possible for the KSRTC to travel with the conductor wherever he goes to check whether every ticket is issued or not. It is misappropriation of Corporation money making the people travelling in the bus as if they are issued tickets. Whenever a conductor is caught, then only such irregularities could be found and it is not possible for the KSRTC to travel with the conductor wherever he goes to check whether every ticket is issued or not. It is contended that checking is minimal and even so irregularities are found and is causing loss to the public money and as such sympathetic view cannot be taken. It is further contended that respondent is a probationer and his probationary period is not declared satisfactory. In view of that, he does not deserve any sympathy ( 5 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the 1st respondent contended that he has truthfully accepted the guilt and a newcomer and inexperienced he might have committed such mistake. Therefore the Labour Court has taken lenient view and reinstated him with full back wages. However the learned Single Judge has denied 75% back wages and has granted only 25% back wages and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the appeal. ( 6 ) IN view of the above said circumstances, the only question that arises is what is the penalty that has to be imposed. It is a fact that whenever a check is made, some irregularities are found and the act of a conductor in not issuing tickets and reissuing the tickets which are already issued, are traced. At other times, when there is no check, what happens to the money so collected, nobody knows. Having regard to the vast population, most of them being illiterates do not know that they have to purchase tickets compulsorily. They think that by paying fare to the conductor, they can validly travel in the bus. Taking advantage of this situation, possibility of misuse of the money by the conductor cannot be ruled out. Further, conductors are trustees of public money and therefore in such cases, the Corporation and other authorities must be vigilant so that public money cannot be pilferaged causing loss to the public exchequer, who are tax-payers and with whose money the Government is running. In view of the above circumstances, whenever charges are proved, it cannot be said that dismissal is always bad. In a given case, the Labour Court may take a lenient view as the amount involved is meagre. In view of the above circumstances, whenever charges are proved, it cannot be said that dismissal is always bad. In a given case, the Labour Court may take a lenient view as the amount involved is meagre. The law is not only to safeguard the citizens. It has also got a duty to protect the rights and properties of citizens. Therefore, a duty is cast on the Courts to see that balance is maintained. ( 7 ) IN view of these circumstances, we think it just and proper that even directing 25% of back wages is not proper in the case. Being a probationer, he ought to have behaved well without any remark. Keeping blank the way bill entry with an ulterior motive of reissuing the tickets is a very grave offence. In view of that, we modify the order of the learned Single Judge and direct reinstatement without any back wages. If the workman is not reinstated, we direct the corporation to reinstate and keep a watch on his work for a period of five years so that he will maintain good conduct. ( 8 ) APPEAL is disposed of accordingly.