JUDGMENT Arun Mishra, J. 1. In this writ petition petitioner is assailing an Order (P-1) passed by Industrial Court by which Industrial Court has reversed the order passed by Labour Court Labour Court has directed reinstatement without backwages of petitioner who held the post of conductor. Petitioner held the post of Conductor in MPSRTC, he was found carrying 21 passengers without ticket, departmental enquiry was held, pursuant to departmental enquiry his services were terminated as per Order dated 24.12.1986, order of termination of services was assailed by petitioner by way of filing an application under Section 31 read with Section 61 of MPIR Act. The Labour Court declared the enquiry to be illegal as per Order dated 7.8.1987, thereafter evidence was adduced by both parties. On consideration of evidence. Labour Court directed reinstatement without backwages. MPSRTC preferred an appeal against the order passed by Labour Court, appeal has been decided as per Order (P.I) dated 23.4.1998, appeal has been allowed, conductor has been found guilty of taking 21 passengers without ticket, hence, this petition has been preferred by petitioner assailing order (P-1) passed by Industrial Court. 2. Shri Aditya Ahiwasi, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner has Submitted that it is a case where conductor was not in the bus at the relevant time. He had gone to answer the call of nature as such he cannot be said to be responsible for taking 21 passengers without ticket. He had worked for a period of 9 years, as his reinstatement was made after order was passed by Labour Court on 18.1.1989 till the date of passing of order by Industrial Court, conductor has rendered the services, backwages were not granted, that ought to have been treated as sufficient punishment to petitioner, in case any misconduct was made out. Findings recorded by Labour Court were propor, thus, the order passed by industrial Count deserves to be set aside. 3. Shri Saurabh Tiwari, learned Counsel appearing for MPSRTC lias submitted that it is a case of serious misconduct, bus was followed by flying squad for 5 kms., bus was not stopped, on check post when the bus inevitably stopped, conductor ran away from the bus, conductor has realized the fare from 21 passengers, tickets were issued by flying squad, there is nothing to doubt the statement of checkers. Independent corroboration was not required, misconduct stands established, no interference is called for in writ petition considering the serious nature of misconduct committed by conductor. 4. It is clear that bus was checked at the checkpost, conductor ran away, did not stop the bus for several kilometers when he was asked to stop, when bus ultimately stopped at the checkpost which was not in the control of conductor, he ran away. There is nothing to disbelieve the version of checkers in the instant case. Facts are writ large, it has been rightly concluded by Industrial Court that conductor had not issued tickets to 21 passengers that is why he ran away, he had realized the fare from those passengers, tickets were issued by checkers, it is a case of serious nature of misconduct, the finding which has been arrived at by the Industrial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence, Labour Court has misdirected itself, it is not natural for a conductor to go away on the checkpost as submitted for answering call of nature for quite sometime, obviously he ran away faced with the flying squad. Immediate conduct indicates that he was a guilty mind, the acquittal in criminal case cannot come in the way of departmental enquiry as standard of proof in criminal case is totally different than that of departmental enquiry, evidence has also been adduced before the Labour Court in the instant case, scope for proceeding under Section 31 read with Section 61 of MPIR Act is independent, I find considering the serious nature of misconduct which has been found established that Submission has been rightly discarded that it was a case of petty amount by the Industrial Court. Misconduct is writ large, in case of such misconduct particularly when the finding of Industrial Court is not shown to be perverse in any manner, I find no scope for interference. The Apex Court has also laid down that in such a case of misconduct which involves loss of, confidence out of misplaced sympathy, interference should not be made by a Court merely by the circumstance that Labour Court passed an order in favour of petitioner, cannot come in the way of deciding the case in judicious manner by Industrial Court. Industrial Court has rightly inferred that misconduct Elands established. 5. Industrial Court has rightly inferred that misconduct Elands established. 5. The Apex Court has considered the matter in Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Co-operative Wholesale Stores Ltd.) and Ors. v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukarana Sangha and Ors. 2000 (87) FLR 493 (SC) the Apex Court has laid down that Court cannot show uncalled sympathy in such cases of misappropriation and reinstating the employees in service. The Apex Court has held thus: 6. As stated above, the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench in writ appeals confirmed the findings given by, the Labour Court that charges against the workmen for breach of trust and misappropriation of funds entrusted to them for the value mentioned in the charge-sheet had been established. After giving the said findings, in our view, the Labour Court materially erred in setting aside the order passed by the management removing the workmen from service and reinstating them with 25% back-wages. Once an act of misappropriation is' proved, may be for a small or large amount, there is no question of showing uncalled-for sympathy and reinstating the employees in service. Law on this point is well settled. Re : Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari 1996 (73) FLR 1429 (SC). In U.P.S.R.T.C. v. Basudeo Chaudhary (1997) 11 SCC 370 this Court set aside the judgment passed by the High Court in a case where a conductor serving with U.P. State Road Transport Corporation was removed from service on the ground that the alleged misconduct of the conductor was an attempt to cause loss of Rs. 65 to the Corporation by issuing tickets to 23 passengers for a sum of Rs. 2.35 but recovering @ 5.35 per head and also by making entry in the way bill as having received the amount of Rs. 2.35, which figure was subsequently altered to Rs. 2.85. The Court held that it was not possible to say that the Corporation removing the conductor from service has imposed a punishment which is disproportionate to his misconduct. Similarly in Punjab Dairy Development Corpn. Ltd. v. Kala Singh 1997 (76) FLR 899 (SC) this Court considered the case of a workman who was working as a Dairy Helper-cum-Cleaner for collecting milk from various centres and was charged for the misconduct that he inflated the quantum of milk supplies in the milk centres and also inflated the qualify of fat contents where there were less fat contents. The Court held (at SCC pp. 161-62, Para 4) that in view of the proof of misconduct a necessary consequence will be that the management had lost confidence that the workman would truthfully and faithfully carry on his duties and consequently the Labour Court rightly declined to excercise the power under Section 11-A of the I.D. Act to grant relief with minor penalty. 6. In Regional Manager and Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Hyderabad and Anr. v. S. Mohammed Gaffar 2002 (95) FLR 3 (SC) the Apex Court has held that Court cannot interfere in the quantum of punishment, if the penalty is shockingly disproportionate or is in violation of Wednesbury Principles. I find that penalty is not disproportionate, nor it violates the Wednesbury Principles of reasonableness. 7. In Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti 2001 (88) FLR 912 (SC) where the Conductor has realized the fare at higher rate, it was held to be a case of gross misconduct and dismissal was upheld. The order of reinstatement passed by the High Court was set aside by the Apex Court and it was held to be a case of misplaced sympathy." 8. In view of above discussion, I find that there is no merit in the writ petition. Writ petition is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs as incurred of this writ petition.