PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. ( 1 ) BY means of this writ petition, under article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned award dated november 28, 1997 passed by the Labour court (respondent No. 2 ). ( 2 ) BRIEF facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that respondent no. 3 Janeshwar Prasad Tyagi was working on the post of conductor with the petitioner-Corporation in its Haridwar Depot. On April 25, 1985 he was deputed to discharge his duties on Haridwar-Karnal route alongwith bag No. 1 containing bus tickets to be issued to the passengers on the said route. However, respondent No. 3 on his return did not deposit the bag and instead it was found that he issued 135 fake tickets to the passengers on the said route. Consequently when the said fact was discovered, a full-fledged departmental enquiry was initiated against respondent No. 3 in which the charges of serious misconduct were found proved and consequently respondent No. 3 was removed from service vide order dated September 11, 1987. The respondent No. 3 challenged the said order and got referred the Industrial Dispute which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 168/1988. The Labour Court by means of award dated june 26, 1989, set aside the order of removal dated September 11, 1987 on the ground that the delinquent official was not issued show cause notice and directed him to be reinstated with liberty to the petitioner-Corporation to take appropriate action by issuing proper show cause notice. In compliance of the said award respondent No. 3 was reinstated in service and posted in Saharanpur Depot. Thereafter vide order dated July 26, 1995 a show cause notice was issued to the respondent No. 3 alongwith enquiry report that why he be not removed from service. On considering his reply and material before it, the appointing authority passed impugned order dated June 17, 1996 again removing the respondent No. 3 from service. Challenging the said orders, once again respondent No. 3 got referred the Industrial dispute and this time it was registered as adjudication Case No. 131/1997. Petitioner filed its written statement before the Labour court defending the action taken against the respondent No. 3. Challenging the said orders, once again respondent No. 3 got referred the Industrial dispute and this time it was registered as adjudication Case No. 131/1997. Petitioner filed its written statement before the Labour court defending the action taken against the respondent No. 3. However, the Labour Court, on the ground that punishment awarded to the employee was disproportionate to the misconduct, set aside the order of removal and awarded the punishment of stoppage of only one increment and directed the respondent no. 3 to be reinstated in service again. Aggrieved by which this writ petition has been filed. ( 3 ) A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3 in which it is stated that it is false to say that the petitioner did not deposit the ticket bag. It is also denied if the answering respondent issued 135 fake tickets to the passengers. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that the show cause notice after the earlier removal order was set aside, was mala fide. Defending the impugned award, respondent No. 3 has stated in his counter affidavit that not only unsold tickets alongwith bag was returned to the petitioner-Corporation but also the money realised from the passengers was also given with it. In supplementary counter affidavit of respondent No. 3 it is stated that the respondent No. 3 is not being paid full salary in compliance of Section 17-B of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. ( 4 ) THIS writ petition was filed before the allahabad High Court in 1998 and received by this Court by transfer under Section 35 of U. P. Re-organization Act, 2000, for its disposal. ( 5 ) I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. ( 6 ) ADMITTEDLY the petitioner was employed as conductor with petitioner corporation. The dispute relates to the charge whether the petitioner has sold forged tickets to the passengers, and whether the award in question whereby the order of removal is set aside is bad in the eye of law. From Annexure-I to the writ petition which is copy of the enquiry report dated April 10, 1996, it is clear that the charge-sheet dated March 18, 1987 relating to aforesaid alleged misconduct of selling forged tickets on Haridwar-Karnal route was served on the respondent No. 3. From Annexure-I to the writ petition which is copy of the enquiry report dated April 10, 1996, it is clear that the charge-sheet dated March 18, 1987 relating to aforesaid alleged misconduct of selling forged tickets on Haridwar-Karnal route was served on the respondent No. 3. It is nowhere disputed by the respondent No. 3 that charge-sheet was not served on him. It is also not denied that even before awarding the punishment on the basis of said enquiry report, a show cause notice was given to the respondent No. 3 alongwith enquiry report in compliance of the earlier award of labour Court whereby the earlier order of removal was set aside. As such as far as the compliance of principle of natural justice is concerned there appears to be no violation of said principles on the part of the petitioner. The ground on which the fresh order of removal passed on June 17, 1996, is set aside by the labour Court, vide its impugned award dated november 28, 1997, is that the misconduct is disproportionate to the punishment awarded. The Labour Court has mentioned in the impugned award that since the conductor deposited the fare collected from the passengers and he was not responsible for getting printed the forged tickets as such he cannot be said to be dishonest person. However, this Court is unable to agree with the reason mentioned by the Labour Court that the charge of selling forged tickets is not serious one to attract the punishment of removal. Merely for the reason that money collected by selling forged tickets, was deposited with the petitioner Corporation misconduct cannot get diluted. ( 7 ) IN view of the principle of law laid down in Janatha Bazar v. Secretary, Sahakari noukarara Sangha AIR 2000 SC 3129 : 2000 (7) SCC 517 : 2000-II-LLJ-1395, in case of proved misconduct, Labour Court cannot substitute the punishment awarded to the delinquent official. The same view has been expressed by the Apex Court also in U. P. State road Transport Corporation v. Subhash chandra Sharma AIR 2000 SC 1163 : 2000 (3)SCC 324 : 2000-I-LLJ-1117 and in Divisional controller, KSRTC v. A. T, Mane 2004-III-LLJ-1074 (SC) ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent no. The same view has been expressed by the Apex Court also in U. P. State road Transport Corporation v. Subhash chandra Sharma AIR 2000 SC 1163 : 2000 (3)SCC 324 : 2000-I-LLJ-1117 and in Divisional controller, KSRTC v. A. T, Mane 2004-III-LLJ-1074 (SC) ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent no. 3 argued that after the first removal order was set aside by the Labour Court, only show cause notice was given to the delinquent official and no fresh enquiry was conducted. I have gone through the record. From the record it is very clear that in its order dated June 26, 1989 labour Court has held that the enquiry has been done properly and only show cause notice was directed to be given before the punishment is awarded. As such there is no substance in the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent no. 3. ( 9 ) SHRI Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 drew my attention to the principle of law laid down in Scooters India ltd. v. Labour Court AIR 1989 SC 149 : 1989 supp (1) SCC 31 : 1989-I-LLJ-71 and also that in Workmen of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. of India Pvt. Ltd. v. Management AIR 1973 SC 1227 : 1973 (1) SCC 813 : 1973-I-LLJ-278 and it is argued that the Labour Court was well within its power to re-appreciate the evidence with regard to the domestic enquiry and examine the correctness of the order of punishment. I agree with the principle of law contained in both the referred case laws but that by itself cannot give license to the Labour Court to dilute the punishment in the matters of serious misconduct. The Labour Court in the earlier award held that the departmental enquiry was proper except as to show cause notice before punishment. And even while passing the impugned award it has awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment after finding that the misconduct was proved the labour Court appears to have closed its eyes to the seriousness of the charge and the misconduct of selling forged tickets to the passengers. In the circumstances of the case the petitioner-Corporation cannot be compelled to pull on with the employee regarding whom it has lost its confidence. In the circumstances of the case the petitioner-Corporation cannot be compelled to pull on with the employee regarding whom it has lost its confidence. ( 10 ) THEREFORE, for the reasons as discussed above, the impugned award, whereby the delinquent official has been permitted to escape with minor punishment of stoppage of only one increment in pay, in the matter of serious misconduct, is against the law of the service jurisprudence, and is liable to be quashed. Accordingly the writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated november 28, 1997 passed by the Labour court is quashed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. No order as to costs. --- *** --- .