K. A. PUJ, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, in this petition, has challenged the order passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference (LCR) No. 655/1986 on 22. 06. 1993 whereby the Labour Court has rejected the reference seeking reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and all consequential benefits. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he has joined in the service of the respondent as S. T. Conductor in 1979. The petitioner was falsely implicated in an incident of alleged misconduct on 23. 11. 1980. On that day, the petitioner was on duty on Gandhidham - Naliya route Via Bhuj. After the bus left from Bhuj for going to Naliya, one passenger named Damji Jethmal boarded the bus from village Kothara for going to Naliya with luggage and he told the petitioner that the luggage was weighing 300 Kgs. The petitioner, therefore, issued passenger ticket of Rs. 1. 15np. bearing ticket No. 7734 and the luggage ticket of Rs. 6. 00 bearing ticket Nos. 742 to 749 of 0. 25 Paise denomination and ticket Nos. 269 to 276 of 0. 50ps. denomination each. The petitioner has further stated that he has recovered only Rs. 7. 15 from the said passenger for the said tickets. ( 3 ) IT is further stated that Mr. Mahavirsinh Gohil, the Depot Manager at Naliya checked the bus at Naliya and falsely implicated the petitioner in the alleged misconduct of misappropriation by recording a statement of the said passenger Damji Jethmal alleging that he was travelling from Bhuj to Naliya in the said bus and that he had 11 bundles containing with him for which he had told approximate weight 300 Kgs. to the petitioner and that the conductor had issued ticket Nos. 406270 to 406276 of Rs. 0. 50 ps. denomination each at Kothara for the said luggage and that he had paid Rs. 36. 00 np. to the petitioner and that the bundles when weighed at Naliya by the Depot Manager, the weight came to 415 Kgs. and after deducting 15 Kgs. , the luggage came to 400 Kgs. for which the luggage charges amounted to Rs. 40. 00 had been paid by the said passenger along with Rs. 100. 00 towards penalty. The said Depot Manager Mr. Mahavirsinh Gohil has also recorded the statement of the petitioner. and after deducting 15 Kgs. , the luggage came to 400 Kgs. for which the luggage charges amounted to Rs. 40. 00 had been paid by the said passenger along with Rs. 100. 00 towards penalty. The said Depot Manager Mr. Mahavirsinh Gohil has also recorded the statement of the petitioner. Thereafter, the said Depot Manager has submitted his line checking report dtd. 8. 12. 1980 alleging that the petitioner had misappropriated Rs. 26. 25ps. in the said incident and that if the luggage was not checked then the conductor and the passenger would have misappropriated Rs. 38. 50 from the lawful income of the corporation. ( 4 ) IT is further stated that consequent to the aforesaid report, the petitioner was issued Charge-sheet dtd. 10. 12. 1980 alleging misappropriation of Rs. 26. 25ps. by the petitioner in the said incident. A reply was given by the petitioner on 17. 12. 1980 that he would give his reply in the defence at the time of personal hearing. The hearing was taken place before the Divisional Transport Superintendent on 14. 06. 1982. The Depot Manager Mr. Gohil was also examined and the petitioner was also put certain questions. The petitioner was, thereafter, issued Show Cause Notice on 22. 07. 1982 by the Disciplinary Authority wherein the penalty of dismissal was proposed. The petitioner replied to the said show cause notice on 27. 07. 1982 contending therein that he was completely innocent and that the Depot Manager has intentionally not referred to the passenger ticket of the said passenger and that he was being harassed without any fault on his part and that there were number of instances and circumstances showing that he was acting and discharging his duties quiet honestly. ( 5 ) IT was further stated that the aforesaid default case was closed because the petitioner was dismissed in another default case. However, against the said dismissal, the petitioner preferred first departmental appeal and the first appellate authority reinstated the petitioner in service and imposed a penalty of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Thereafter, the present default case was reopened and the petitioner was called upon to make his further submissions if any, in response to the show cause notice. The petitioner remained personally present on 31. 05. 1984 before the Disciplinary Authority and made his submissions. Thereafter, the present default case was reopened and the petitioner was called upon to make his further submissions if any, in response to the show cause notice. The petitioner remained personally present on 31. 05. 1984 before the Disciplinary Authority and made his submissions. After considering the said submissions, facts and evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority has passed an order dtd. 10. 07. 1984 dismissing the petitioner from service. The petitioner preferred first departmental appeal against the dismissal which was dismissed and thereafter, second departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was also dismissed on 16. 08. 1985. ( 6 ) BEING aggrieved by the outcome of the said departmental proceedings and appeals, the petitioner raised an Industrial dispute and it was referred to the Labour Court, Rajkot bearing No. LCA 655/1986. The petitioner had submitted his statement of claim and the respondent had also filed their written statement and produced various documentary evidences. After conducting full-fledged trial and considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court has passed an award on 22. 06. 1993 rejecting the reference preferred by the petitioner. It is this award which is under challenge before this Court in this writ petition. ( 7 ) THIS Court had issued Rule on 12. 08. 1993 and the same was duly served on the respondents. Though the respondents filed their appearance, no affidavit-in-reply is filed by the respondents. ( 8 ) MR. Kaushik. B. Pujara, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no evidence against the petitioner implicating him in the alleged misconduct. It was only the confessional statement of the petitioner recorded on 23. 11. 1980, on the basis of which the order of dismissal was passed. He has further submitted that the said statement was not voluntary statement of the petitioner and it was signed by him as dictated by Mr. Gohil. Mr. K. B. Pujara has further submitted that due to sheer frustration, the petitioner could not defend himself before the departmental authorities as well as before the Labour Court. He has further submitted that there were discrepancies in the statement of the passenger as well as charges framed against the petitioner. Gohil. Mr. K. B. Pujara has further submitted that due to sheer frustration, the petitioner could not defend himself before the departmental authorities as well as before the Labour Court. He has further submitted that there were discrepancies in the statement of the passenger as well as charges framed against the petitioner. He has also submitted that the petitioners case was really a case of no evidence in as much as there was no proof of the facts constituting the misconduct alleged against the petitioner and much reliance was placed on the admission of guilt in the petitioners statement dtd. 23. 11. 1980 which statement was not in fact voluntary and was only at the instance of Depot Manager. He has further submitted that the Labour Court has not exercised its powers under Section 11 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has further submitted that prior to the incident in question, the Depot Manager Mr. Gohil had demanded a sum of Rs. 500. 00 from the petitioner and the petitioner had refused to pay the said amount and it is only because of that, a false case was registered against the petitioner. Mr. K. B. Pujara has further submitted that when there is no independent evidence proving the charges levelled against the petitioner and the punishment is merely based on the confessional statement of the delinquent employee, the said punishment cannot be held to be valid in the eye of law. For this proposition, he has relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Natverbhai S. Makwana V/s. Union Bank of India and Others reported in 1984 G. L. H. 791 wherein it is held as under :-"it may happen that the Bank authorities may bona fide believe that there is theft or misappropriation of bank money. The delinquent officer charged with misconduct of theft or misappropriation may be induced to confess the guilt for one reason or another - say informal understanding that he shall be dealt with leniently. Or that he himself might have been lost in the jungle of account books and he himself may not be sure as to whether he has committed any mistake or not. He may be on the verge of retirement and may be desirous to put an end to any such inquiry. He may not have resources to fight the case put against him. He may be on the verge of retirement and may be desirous to put an end to any such inquiry. He may not have resources to fight the case put against him. For any of these reasons or say on account of mere foolishness he may confess the misconduct charged against him and be punished for the same without there being any evidence or proof for the same, i. e. theft/misappropriation. Later on, in audit it may be discovered that there was only accounting mistake and no theft/misappropriation whatsoever. To avoid such possibility, it is always necessary that the factum of misconduct be established. Moreover, disciplinary proceedings by the department are in the nature of quasi criminal proceedings - much more so from the view point of consequences of such proceedings. An employee may be visited with the penalty or removal or dismissal from service which would be almost equivalent to economic death sentence. Therefore, proof of the facts constituting misconduct has got to be emphasised. Ordinarily, admission alone of the delinquent officer cannot be regarded as sufficient proof of misconduct as well as the facts constituting misconduct. " ( 9 ) ON the basis of the aforesaid judgment, Mr. K. B. Pujara has submitted that some lesser punishment may be awarded to the petitioner looking to the facts and circumstances of this case. ( 10 ) ON the other hand Miss. Maya S. Desai, learned advocate appearing for Mr. M. D. Pandya for the respondent submitted that before the departmental authorities, before the disciplinary authority and appellate authority and before the Labour Court, the charge levelled against the petitioner was proved and the petitioner has not led any evidence in his defence. On the contrary, when a specific question was put to the petitioner as to whether he wanted to examine the Depot Manager, he has given his reply in negative. Again the petitioner was asked as to whether he wanted to say anything further or he wanted to examine any witnesses or led any evidence and the petitioners reply was also negative. Both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have observed that the petitioner has admitted in his statement that the passenger Mr. Damji Jethmal was travelling from Bhuj to Naliya. Both the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have observed that the petitioner has admitted in his statement that the passenger Mr. Damji Jethmal was travelling from Bhuj to Naliya. Both these authorities have observed that the statement of the petitioner was so clear that no other evidence was required for establishing the charge against the petitioner. The Labour Court has also observed in its award that it was proved on record that the workman had committed misappropriation of Rs. 29. 75ps. as stated in the Charge-sheet of not issuing tickets for the luggage of the passenger, according to the weight disclosed by the passenger to him. The Labour Court has further observed that the workman was in the habit of issuing less tickets to the passengers travelling in his bus and recovered full fare from them. The Labour Court has taken note of the fact from the default card that at item No. 2, it has been shown that the petitioner had issued short ticket to 8 + 3 passengers, for which he was fined Rs. 3. 00. At item No. 6, it was found that the petitioner had recovered Rs. 31. 50ps. as luggage fare but had issued luggage ticket worth Rs. 22. 65ps. only. The Labour Court has, therefore, taken into consideration the past service record of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioners present default of misapproptiating the amount of Rs. 29. 75ps. which he collected from the passengers, towards luggage charge for which he had not issued tickets to the passengers is a very serious default and hence, no interference with sentence of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner by the respondent Corporation was deemed to be fit and proper by the Labour Court. Miss Maya S. Desai, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has further relied on the decision of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. V/s. P. C. Kakkar reported in JT 2003 (2) SC 78 wherein it is held that unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to certain litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. Further to certain litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. On the basis of these observations, Miss Maya S. Desai has submitted that looking to the misconduct committed by the petitioner and looking to his past service record, the Labour Court has came to the correct decision and it cannot be said that it was disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the petitioner. ( 11 ) MISS Maya S. Desai has further relied on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Regional Manager, U. P. S. R. T. C. , Etawah and Ors. V/s. Hoti Lal and Another reported in JT 2003 (2) S. C. 27 wherein it is held as under :-"it needs to be emphasized that the court or tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment does not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been made above, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case as the quoted extracts of the High Courts order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever has been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. (See Alexander Machinery Dudley Ltd. V/s. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. A party appearing before a court, as to what it is that the court is addressing its mind. It is not only the amount involved but the mental set up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, highest degree of integrity and trust-worthiness is must and unexceptionable. Judged in that background, conclusions of the division bench of the High Court do not appear to be proper. We set aside the same and restore order of learned single judge upholding order of dismissal. " ( 12 ) IN view of the above facts and circumstances of the case as well as the settled legal position, Miss. Maya Desai has submitted that no interference is called for by this Court by exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and hence, she has submitted that the petition be dismissed. ( 13 ) I have heard learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and I have also considered their submissions. I have gone through the memo of petition as well as documents attached therewith and I have also gone through the orders passed by disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the Labour Court. I am of the view that all the three authorities have taken the correct decision on the facts and evidence on record and no interference is called for by this Court while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It has come on record that the petitioner was involved in the misconduct. Enough opportunities were given to the petitioner. However, the petitioner has not submitted any defence. On the contrary, in his statement dtd. 23. 11. 1980 he has virtually confessed the charges levelled against him. The petitioner has refused to cross-examine the Depot Manager who has first given the Line Checking Report on 08. 12. 1980. The petitioner has also refused to lead any evidence or examine any witness in his behalf. The petitioner was also involved in other misconducts as observed by the authorities below. The petitioner has refused to cross-examine the Depot Manager who has first given the Line Checking Report on 08. 12. 1980. The petitioner has also refused to lead any evidence or examine any witness in his behalf. The petitioner was also involved in other misconducts as observed by the authorities below. The decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Natwarsinh Makwana V/s. Union Bank of India does not render any assistance to the petitioner as in that case, it was observed that later on in audit it may be found that there was only accounting mistake and no theft/misappropriation whatsoever. Here in the present case, the factum of misconduct was established as the statement of the passenger was recorded and during the course of checking, incriminating materials were found. Thereafter, during the course of departmental inquiry as well as before the appellate authority or before the Labour Court, no controverting materials were produced by the petitioner. It cannot be said that the decision was taken merely on admission of guilt by the delinquent. The petitioner being conductor in the respondent Corporation was acting in a fiduciary capacity and it was expected from him that he should not be involved in any misappropriation. If any lenient view is taken against such person dealing with financial matters, the organisation would ultimate suffer. Honesty and sincerity are the prime consideration for deciding the petitioners involvement in the misconduct. When all the three authorities have found against the petitioner that he was involved in the said misconduct and there was no contrary evidence to disturb the said finding, this Court while exercising its writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not inclined to interfere with the findings arrived at by the authorities below. Since there is no merits or substance in the petition, the petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. .