Judgment :- The management of the Transport Corporation seeks for the issue of a writ of certiorari to quash the award of the Labour Court in I.D.No. 45 of 1995 dated 30.10.1995. 2. According to the management/petitioner, the second respondent joined the services of the Corporation as Conductor on 15.10.1977 and he was confirmed as a permanent worker on 1.1..1979. On 12.4.1994 he was on duty in the bus proceeding from Ooty to Cherampady. The bus was checked at the border of Cherampady. The Checking Inspector found that two passengers who were travelling from Cherangodu to Cherampady did not have tickets even though fare had been collected from them. It was further found that two of the passengers had been issued with used tickets. On enquiry, according to the management, the employee did not have any explanation. He was enquired in the presence of the driver and a statement was prepared and both the employee and the Driver had signed the statement without any protest. The management was not satisfied with his explanation and a domestic enquiry was conducted. He was kept under suspension. Even during the pendency of the said proceedings on 21.5.1994 when he was on duty in a bus proceeding from Coimbatore to Ooty when he had collected fare from one passenger and did not issue the ticket. When the bus was checked at Periyanaickenpalayam, it was found that the second respondent had collected Rs.11.50 from the passenger. A show-cause notice was issued and followed by a domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found the charges proved and accordingly a second show-cause notice was issued proposing penalty of dismissal. By order dated 29.6.1994, the second respondent was dismissed from service. 3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.45 of 1995 and the Labour Court ordered reinstatement with continuity of service with 50 per cent of the backwages. Hence the above writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner/management contends that the employee did not question the validity of the enquiry and did not also challenge the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, finding the employee as guilty of misconduct. The employee had raised only the issue of proportionality of the punishment for consideration. In spite of the same, the Labour Court went into the evidence and held that charges regarding misconduct on 25.9.1994 were not proved. The employee had raised only the issue of proportionality of the punishment for consideration. In spite of the same, the Labour Court went into the evidence and held that charges regarding misconduct on 25.9.1994 were not proved. The Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so. Considering that as a result of the stand taken by the employee in not questioning the validity of the enquiry and also the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer, the management did not let in any oral evidence or adduce detailed evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court ought not to have gone into the merits of the evidence which places the management at an unfair disadvantage. 5. Learned counsel further contends that the employee in this case is a specimen case of chronic misconduct of misappropriation and he has been punished not less than 35 times on the very same charge of misappropriation of the collected amount. He has also suffered other punishments totalling about 100 punishments during his career. The Labour Court has also proceeded on certain surmises which reflect perverted appreciation of evidence. 6. Learned counsel relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF HARYANA v. RATTAN SINGH (1982 (I) L.L.J., 46) in support of his contention that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to domestic enquiry and the point was whether there is some acceptable evidence. 7. Reference is also made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in in KASI v. PANDIAN ROADWAYS CORPN. LTD. (2003 (2) L.L.N., 642). The Division Bench while dealing with a similar case held that the quantum of misappropriation was not relevant and that it is the nature of the misconduct which has to be taken into account. That was also a case of a Conductor having collected money from the passengers and had no time to give tickets to the passengers. Relying on the observations of the Supreme Court in reported judgments, the Division Bench held that there was no justification for misplaced sympathy. 8. Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for the second respondent/employee contends that the employee has given proper explanation regarding the circumstances under which the checking was carried out. With reference to the occurrence on 12.4.1994, the bus was overloaded. He was issuing tickets and it was only a mistake when he had written two tickets of Rs.2.60 as against 1.60 each. 8. Mr.D.Hariparanthaman, learned counsel for the second respondent/employee contends that the employee has given proper explanation regarding the circumstances under which the checking was carried out. With reference to the occurrence on 12.4.1994, the bus was overloaded. He was issuing tickets and it was only a mistake when he had written two tickets of Rs.2.60 as against 1.60 each. The discrepancy was noticed by the checking staff. With regard to the occurrence on 25.9.1994, one passenger was in intoxicated condition and did not obtain ticket for his travel which was detected when the bus was approaching Coimbatore before the first stage. Checking staff boarded in the bus near Thudiyalur, before the first stage. Therefore, there was no intentional failure on the part of the employee. This was also not a case of misappropriation. 9. Learned counsel contends that the passengers have not been examined before the Enquiry Officer. When the passengers got down at Cherampadi, the Checking staff did not obtain any statement from the two passengers. 10. Learned counsel further contends that the Labour Court had considered the overall circumstances and having regard to the principles arising out of Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court had exercised its discretion in the matter of quantum of punishment and there was no warrant for any interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Learned counsel also relies on the following judgments. 11. Reference is made to the judgment of U.P.S.R.T.COPRN. v. M.K.MISHRA (2000(2) L.L.N., 399) and the observation that the High Court will interfere only if penalty/Award shocks conscience of the Court. 12. In CHERAN TRANSPORT CORPN. LTD. v. P.O.,L.C. (1999 (3) L.L.N., 329) N.V.Balasubramanian,J. held that when the Labour Court had accepted the explanation of the Conductor and held that the punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate to the charge, no interference was called for in the writ petition. 13. In SRI GANAPATI BUS SERVICE v. LABOUR COURT (2001 (1) L.L.N., 780), the Supreme Court dealt with a case of failure of the Conductor to charge for a small luggage and charging half fare instead of full fare to one passenger, the Labour Court had awarded reinstatement of the dismissed employee and it was held that the award did not deserve any interference. 14. I have considered the submissions of both sides. 14. I have considered the submissions of both sides. This is rather an unfortunate case in which the Labour Court had chosen to adopt reasonings which are shocking to the conscience of this Court. After having made it explicit that the employee did not question the validity of the enquiry and the evidence and that he was questioning only the proportionality of the punishment, however, chose to go into the merits of the evidence. In this case, first occurrence relates to a misconduct on 12.4.1994. He was placed under suspension for a short period and again reinstated in service. Even during the enquiry of the said charge, again he indulged in the same misconduct on 21.5.1994. This circumstance is commented upon by the Labour Court as an attempt on the part of the management to harass the employee and that no employee in the position of the second respondent would have committed the second misconduct considering that there was already an enquiry pending against him with reference to the alleged misconduct on 12.5.1994. Such a surmise is totally unwarranted and perverse. The Labour Court had further made certain other observations which are totally irresponsible. The Labour Court had commented that the action against the delinquent has been initiated only for the purpose of preventing him from completing his tenure with the Corporation. 15. With reference to the past misconduct, even after having observed that for the same misconduct, the second respondent has been punished for 35 times, the Labour Court has observed that the misconduct cannot be considered as a serious one. In another writ petition in W.P.No.3362 of 1996, challenging a similar order of the very same learned Presiding Officer, while dealing with the evidence that the delinquent had been chargesheeted and punished 20 times, the Labour Court had observed that it was "only 20 times". It is disheartening to find such attitude being exhibited by judicial officers. 16. I have considered the merits of the evidence also against the second respondent. Apart from the fact that statements have been obtained from the driver of the vehicle as well as the employee himself, there are ample materials to show that the second respondent was guilty of the charges projected against him. 16. I have considered the merits of the evidence also against the second respondent. Apart from the fact that statements have been obtained from the driver of the vehicle as well as the employee himself, there are ample materials to show that the second respondent was guilty of the charges projected against him. The domestic enquiry has been properly conducted and in spite of the fact that the second respondent did not issue tickets to the two passengers who got down at Cherampady, the Labour Court had chosen to come to the conclusion that the charges are not proved. The Checking Inspector had been examined as a witness in the domestic enquiry. In the context of quantum of punishment it has already been stated that the second respondent has been punished for more than 35 times for the same offence of deficit in collecting fare, not to mention other punishments totalling to not less than one hundred. The Labour Court had thought it fit to order reinstatement. The attitude and approach of the Labour Court is rather unfortunate. 17. The Supreme Court as well as this Court time and again had pointed out that in the case of Conductors, the quantum of amount misappropriated is irrelevant and that even if the amount misappropriated is very small, having regard to the nature of the duties discharged by the Conductor and the fiduciary relationship with the management, if the misconduct is proved, the extreme penalty of dismissal from service would be justified and that it would be a case of misplaced sympathy to reinstate them in service, vide judgment of the Supreme Court in KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. B.S.HULLIKATTI (2001 (1) L.L.N., 893). This judgment was also followed by a Division Bench of this Court in KASI v. PANDIAN ROADWAYS CORPN. LTD. (2003 (2) L.L.N., 642) cited above. 18. Considering the aforesaid circumstances, I am inclined to hold that the order of the Labour Court is vitiated by perversity and error on the face of the record. 19. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the dismissal of the employee is upheld. No costs.