ORDER : R.C. Lahoti, J. - The respondent was a conductor in the employment of the appellant. Undisputedly he was a workman. He was charge-sheeted for having issued tickets without punching. An inquiry was held. The charge was found to be proved and the punishment of removal from service was imposed on the respondent. The respondent raised a dispute before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, which found that the charge, as framed against the respondent, was in fact not proved. The tickets were punched by the respondent. However, there was a mistake committed by the respondent in punching the tickets inasmuch as the tickets were issued for down-journey while the punching on the ticket should have been for up-journey. The explanation given by the conductor was that the tickets were issued in the night and the roof lamps of the bus were faulty and that is why the mistake took place. The respondent admitted the mistake but offered the explanation for the commission of the mistake. The Labour Court held that although the charge as framed was not proved and therefore, the punishment of removal was uncalled for, still as the conductor had admitted the factum of mistake in the discharge of duties by him, in the opinion of the Labour Court, the respondent deserved to be reinstated but without back wages. Certain other benefits were also denied to the respondent which otherwise would have been available to him consequent upon the reinstatement having been ordered. 2. The respondent preferred a writ petition before the High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court, who heard and decided the petition, formed an opinion that looking at the nature of the facts found proved by the Labour Court considered in the light of the explanation offered by the respondent, it was a case of sheer mistake and not a case of misconduct or neglect in discharge of duties. In the opinion of the High Court, the mistake was so minor that it did not call for any disciplinary action at all. On these findings, the High Court set aside the order of the Labour Court and instead directed the respondent to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including back wages. 3. The employer Corporation has filed this appeal by special leave. On these findings, the High Court set aside the order of the Labour Court and instead directed the respondent to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including back wages. 3. The employer Corporation has filed this appeal by special leave. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we are satisfied that the impugned order of the High Court does not call for any interference. The employee cannot be punished for a sheer mistake, which is found to have been committed bonafide. Admittedly the alleged mistake of the respondent has not resulted in any loss to the Corporation. If the respondent could not be held guilty of the charge framed against him and not even guilty of having committed a culpable mistake, then any disciplinary action against him was uncalled for. At the most, a warning could have been issued to the respondent to be careful for the future. Once it is held that the respondent was not guilty of any misconduct or of negligence in performance of his duties, the departmental inquiry held against him was uncalled for and the punishment of removal could not have been imposed on him. As the finding of guilt itself has been set aside, the question of denying back wages does not arise. 4. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any fault with the view taken by the High Court in its impugned judgment. The appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.