R. V. RAVEENDRAN, J. ( 1 ) RESPONDENT was working as Conductor in ksrtc (predecessor of NEKRTC-appellant herein ). When the respondent was conducting the bus on June 28, 1991, the Checking Squad checked the bus and found that respondent possessed excess cash of Rs. 338/ -. A charge memo dated July 15, 1991 was issued to him in that behalf. Respondent admitted possession of excess cash of Rs. 338/-, but however sought to explain the same by stating that one Vittal bhovi working as Assistant Artisan in the Bidar depot had given him a sum of Rs. 350/- for purchasing rice at Jambagi at Andhra Pradesh border which he could not purchase on that day, and therefore he possessed the cash. ( 2 ) IN the ensuing enquiry, respondent gave evidence and also examined the said Vittal bhovi who clearly stated that he had given Rs. 350/- to the respondent for purchase of rice on that day. The said Vittal Bhovi was not cross-examined. Ultimately, Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding the respondent guilty of the charge and acting on the same, disciplinary authority passed the order dated may 20, 1996 imposing the punishment of dismissal from service. ( 3 ) FEELING aggrieved, respondent submitted a claim petition under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Labour Court, Gulbarga registered as K. I. D. No. 388 of 1998. The Labour Court found that enquiry was fair and proper. It however held, on reappraisal of evidence placed before the enquiry, that the charge had not been established in the enquiry. Therefore, labour Court, by award dated June 5, 1999 allowed the claim petition and set aside the order of dismissal and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service (subject to the condition that the period between the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement should not be counted for the purpose of seniority, and to be counted in full for all other purposes ). The Labour Court also held that respondent will not be entitled to back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of claim petition (July 7, 1998 ). ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, appellant filed W. P. No. 4646 of 2000. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated July 5, 2001. The Labour Court also held that respondent will not be entitled to back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of claim petition (July 7, 1998 ). ( 4 ) FEELING aggrieved, appellant filed W. P. No. 4646 of 2000. A learned single Judge of this Court dismissed the writ petition by order dated July 5, 2001. He held that there was no ground to interfere with the exoneration of respondent in regard to the charge. However, as there was a technical violation namely, the respondent had not got the amount kept by him, noted/recorded in the waybill, as required by the relevant circulars, the learned single Judge felt that some punishment should be imposed. He therefore held that imposing of punishment of dismissal was unwarranted, but entire back wages should be denied as punishment. He, therefore modified the order of the Labour court by denying back wages till date of reinstatement, instead of denying back wages till the date of claim statement. The said order of the learned single Judge is challenged by the appellant in this appeal. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that when once the possession of excess cash was admitted and such excess cash was not noted in the waybill, the misconduct was established and Labour court should not have interfered with the punishment. She submitted that unaccounted excess cash meant pilferage and misappropriation of employers funds and unless the matter was viewed strictly, pilferage would continue unabated. It is submitted that to put an end to the menace, Corporation had issued a circular dated September 7, 1957 directing that drivers and Conductors should not carry personal cash exceeding Rs. 5/- (now increased to Rs. 50/-) and if any crew desired to carry more than the said sum for valid reasons, the said reasons necessitating the carrying of excess cash by the crew and the amount of excess cash carried will have to be recorded (in the waybill) by the stand-in-charge. It is contended that the act of carrying excess cash without declaring it and without getting it recorded in the waybill, is itself a serious misconduct, warranting the penalty of dismissal. It is contended that the act of carrying excess cash without declaring it and without getting it recorded in the waybill, is itself a serious misconduct, warranting the penalty of dismissal. It is pointed out by the appellant that if Conductors caught carrying undeclared and unrecorded excess cash, are permitted to explain away the excess cash by merely getting one of their relatives or friends to say that they had given money for purchasing some articles, then, every Conductor caught carrying excess cash would give the said standard explanation thereby rendering nugatory, the directions in the circular. In this behalf, the appellant relied on the following observations of a Division Bench of this Court in Bangalore Metropolitan Transport corporation v. Fakruddin W. A. No. 7169 of 1999 dated December 15, 1999:"when he (the Conductor) has not reported the excess cash, the presumption that arises for consideration is that the said amount is collected by not issuing the tickets. Once the excess cash is found from the Conductor, which is in contravention of the circular, the burden shifts on to the Conductor, to explain what is the source of excess cash. Under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence act, the burden is on the Conductor to explain the source of money. There is no burden on the management to prove the source of money. The approach the Labour Court that the management has not adduced any evidence to show that the money is collected from the passengers without issuing tickets or any other irregularity is not proper and legal. Once excess amount is found, the burden is on the Conductor to explain how he got possession of the excess amount. When he has failed to explain, the only presumption that has to be drawn is that he collected the amount belonging to KSRTC and he collected the same from the passengers without issuing the tickets". ( 6 ) WE respectfully agree with the said observations. Possessing undeclared excess cash is a breach of the rules and regulations subject to which the Conductor is required to conduct the bus. If the employer established that the Conductor possessed undeclared excess cash, that itself is a misconduct. In addition, it gives rise to a presumption that the Conductor had collected such amount from the passengers as fare without issuing tickets and the amount is misappropriated from the employer. If the employer established that the Conductor possessed undeclared excess cash, that itself is a misconduct. In addition, it gives rise to a presumption that the Conductor had collected such amount from the passengers as fare without issuing tickets and the amount is misappropriated from the employer. If the Conductor is not in a position to satisfactorily explain the source of such excess cash and reason for carrying such excess cash, then the misconduct is one of misappropriation which is much more serious than the technical breach of not getting the excess cash recorded. On the other hand, if the Conductor satisfactorily explains the possession of excess cash and also proves by evidence that it was held legitimately by him (unconnected with the fare collection), then the initial onus placed on the Conductor as a result of the presumption would stand discharged. In that event the Conductor will be guilty of only the technical breach of not getting the excess cash recorded in the waybill. But the management can still prove by other evidence that the excess cash is in fact fare amount relating to unissued tickets. The position therefore can be summarised thus. (I) A Conductor who possesses excess cash (not recorded in the waybill) commits a technical misconduct of not getting it recorded in the waybill. (II) A Conductor who possesses such excess cash and who does not satisfactorily explain as to why he was carrying such excess cash and establish the same by acceptable evidence in the enquiry, will not only be guilty of a technical misconduct of possessing undeclared cash, but also guilty of the grave misconduct of misappropriation. ( 7 ) THE apprehension of the appellant-Corporation is that the explanation given by respondent, if accepted, would lead to Conductors routinely explaining possession of excess cash, by claiming that it was given by friends/relatives for purchasing something; and all that it requires to prove such claim is a willing relative or friend. There is no basis for such cynicism, if we may use that expression. It is always open to the Corporation to cross-examine the witness who gives such evidence and establish that it is false or unlikely. If the explanation is not immediately given by the Conductor, with particulars, it may also be possible to contend that it was given by way of afterthought and therefore it should be rejected. It is always open to the Corporation to cross-examine the witness who gives such evidence and establish that it is false or unlikely. If the explanation is not immediately given by the Conductor, with particulars, it may also be possible to contend that it was given by way of afterthought and therefore it should be rejected. But, merely because the explanation given by the conductor is a standard explanation, is not by itself a ground to reject it, if it is otherwise valid or plausible. If the Corporation wants to make mere possession of excess cash, a grave misconduct, it can do so by inserting an appropriate provision to that effect. Be that as it may. ( 8 ) IN this case, possession of undeclared excess cash is admitted. He immediately explained it by stating that Vittal Bhovi gave him Rs. 350/- for purchasing rice. He also examined Vittal Bhovi who confirmed that he gave respondent, a sum of Rs. 350/ -. The said vittal Bhovi was not cross-examined on behalf of the management. The fact that respondent gave immediate explanation, and led evidence in support of the said explanation and the fact that the Corporation did not choose to cross-examine the witness is sufficient to hold that respondent has satisfactorily explained the possession of excess cash of Rs. 338/ -. Therefore, it has to be held that respondent is guilty of only a technical violation of not getting the excess cash entered in the waybill and is not guilty of misappropriation of Rs. 338/- by way of unaccountedcollection from passengers. I ( 9 ) THE punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate to such technical misconduct, as rightly held by Labour Court and learned single Judge. But the Labour court and the learned single Judge ought to have held that respondent was guilty of the technical misconduct of possessing excess cash without getting the same noted in the waybill and ought to have imposed appropriate penalty for such misconduct. Therefore, while upholding the decision of the Labour Court in setting aside the order of dismissal, we impose a penalty of reduction of wages by two stages in the time scale for a period of two years with a contention that the respondent will not earn increments during the said period of two years. We do not agree that denial of back wages alone is sufficient punishment in such cases. We do not agree that denial of back wages alone is sufficient punishment in such cases. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, we allow the appeal in part and modify the order of the learned single judge, dated July 5, 2001 in W. P. No. 4646 of 2000 as follows. (I) The order of the Labour Court in setting aside the order of dismissal is upheld. (II) Lesser penalty of reduction of wages by two stages for a period of two years with a condition that respondent will not earn increments during that period, is imposed on the respondent, instead of dismissal. (III) The direction of the Labour Court to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service is not disturbed. (IV) Parties to bear their respective costs. --- *** --- .