Judgment :- (Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the First Respondent dated 01.07.2000 and the order of the Second Respondent dated 02.07.1999 and to quash the same and also to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service.) The Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the orders of the Respondents dismissing the Petitioner from service and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with arrears of salary with other benefits. 2. Back Ground facts:- While the Petitioner was working as Conductor on 30.03.1999 in the vehicle of the Respondent Corporation bearing Registration No.TN.33-N-0615 on the route Puliampatti – Tiruppur, the vehicle was checked by the Checking Inspector at Avinashi. At the time of checking, certain omissions and commissions were found by the Checking Inspector. The Petitioner was also found to be in possession of Rs.568.25 in excess. The offence committed by the Petitioner is against Rule 16(c) of Model Standing Order. Hence, the following charges were framed against the Petitioner:- While the vehicle was on the route between Puliampatti and Tiruppur, from 10 passengers, the Petitioner collected Rs.6.25, but issued ticket only for Rs.1.75; The Petitioner collected Rs.3.75 from a passenger travelled from Sevur – Tiruppur, but issued a ticket for Rs.1.75; The Petitioner collected Rs.6.25 each from two passengers travelling from Puliampatti to Tiruppur, but issued old ticket; The Petitioner was found to be having Rs.568.25 in excess. 3. On the above charges, the Petitioner has submitted his explanation. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Respondent Management ordered enquiry. In the domestic enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer, the Petitioner has not chosen to cross-examine the Management Witnesses; but, on the other hand he had admitted all the charges framed against him. Finding that all the charges framed against the Petitioner are proved, the Enquiry Officer submitted his Report. 4. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Second Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 07.06.1999. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on 14.06.1999. Even in the explanation to the second Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner has admitted the offence and requested the Management not to terminate him from the service. By the Impugned Order dated 02.07.1999, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the Petitioner from service. 5. Second Show Cause Notice was issued to the Petitioner on 07.06.1999. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on 14.06.1999. Even in the explanation to the second Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner has admitted the offence and requested the Management not to terminate him from the service. By the Impugned Order dated 02.07.1999, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the Petitioner from service. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Petitioner has admitted the charges thinking that there will be lesser punishment. It was further submitted that during the enquiry, none of the passengers were examined and the charges framed against the Petitioner were not substantiated. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has also submitted that the charges are very trivial and the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the charges framed. Learned counsel further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has simply accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority had not applied its mind to the Enquiry Officer's Report. 6. Learned counsel for the Respondent Management has submitted that the Writ Petitioner having admitted the charges cannot challenge imposing of the punishment. Placing reliance upon the decisions reported in 2006 (6) S.C.C. 187 and 2005 (3) S.C.C. 254 , learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that it is not a quantum of the amount of money misappropriated, but it is the loss of confidence which is the main factor to be taken into consideration for imposing the punishment. 7. In consideration of the admission of the charges and proved misconduct of the Petitioner, the question arises for consideration is whether removal of the Petitioner from service is disproportionate to the charges framed against him. 8. At the time of checking, it was not just one instance of wrong issuance of tickets to one or two passengers. The Petitioner is said to have collected Rs.6.25 from 10 passengers travelling from Puliampatti to Tiruppur, but issued tickets of Rs.1.75. The Petitioner is also said to have collected Rs.3.75 from a passenger travelling from Sevur – Tiruppur and issued ticket only Rs.1.75. Likewise, from other two passengers travelling from Puliampatti to Tiruppur, the Petitioner has collected Rs.6.25, but is alleged to have issued old tickets. Apart from this, the Petitioner was also found to be in possession of Rs.568.25. 9. The Petitioner is also said to have collected Rs.3.75 from a passenger travelling from Sevur – Tiruppur and issued ticket only Rs.1.75. Likewise, from other two passengers travelling from Puliampatti to Tiruppur, the Petitioner has collected Rs.6.25, but is alleged to have issued old tickets. Apart from this, the Petitioner was also found to be in possession of Rs.568.25. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the charges levelled against the Petitioner are not substantiated and the passengers who travelled in the bus were not examined to prove the charges. Examination of passengers was not essential. In this context, it is useful to refer the decision reported in Divisional Controller VS A.T. Mane ( 2005 (3) S.C.C. 254 ) wherein the Supreme Court has held, "...In such circumstances, it was not necessary or possible for the Appellant Corporation to have examined the passengers to establish the guilt of the Respondent. He also submitted that the finding of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge that the punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct is wholly misconceived...." 10. The fact that the Petitioner was carrying Rs.568.25 in excess of the amount is an admitted fact. Possession of excess amount itself is a misconduct. The Petitioner did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. While so, it is not open to the Petitioner to insist upon examination of the passengers. In a domestic enquiry, strict and sophisticated nature, rule of Evidence Act would not apply. Likewise, sufficiency of evidence in proof of finding is also beyond the scrutiny of the Court. In a case arising out of non-issuance of ticket by a conductor, the Supreme Court in the case of State of Haryana Vs Rattan Singh ( 1977 (2) S.C.C. 491 ), held thus: - "... In a domestic enquiry all the strict and sophisticated rules of the Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible, though departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Evidence Act. The essence of judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations, and observance of rules of natural justice. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible, though departmental authorities and Administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Evidence Act. The essence of judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations, and observance of rules of natural justice. Fair play is the basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment, vitiate the conclusion reached, such a finding, even of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held to be good. The simple point in all these cases is, was there some evidence or was there no evidence – not in the sense of the technical rules governing court proceedings but in a fair common sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny by Court, while absence of any evidence in support of the finding is an error of law apparent on the record and the court can interfere with the finding. In the present case, the evidence of the Inspector is some evidence which has relevance to the charge and the courts below had misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the ticketless passengers. Also, merely because their statements were not recorded, the order for termination cannot be invalid. In fact, the Inspector tried to get their statements but the passengers declined. Further, it was not for the Court but for the Tribunal to assess the evidence of the co-conductor..." 11. From the above decision, it is clear that once domestic Tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion, normally it is not open to the High Court to substitute its subjective opinion and also find out the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence adduced. Collecting Rs.6.25 from 10 passengers and issuing tickets for lesser amount of Rs.1.75, reissuing of old tickets and collecting Rs.3.75 and issuing ticket for Rs.1.75 coupled with the fact that he was found in possession of Rs.568.25 in excess clearly speak for itself. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the amount involved is a trivial amount and the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. 12. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the amount involved is a trivial amount and the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. In a catena of Judgments, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that in cases of this nature, it is not the quantum of amount of money misappropriated that becomes the main factor for awarding punishment, but it is the loss of confidence, which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In a similar case where there was misappropriation of funds by the delinquent conductor for Rs.360.95, the Supreme Court has set aside the order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court and its affirmation by the High Court. Referring to various decisions, Dr.AR.LAKSHMANAN, J., in the decision reported in Divisional Controller Vs H.Ameresh ( 2006 (6) S.C.C. 187 ) has held, "....In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs.360.95. The possession of the said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact proved, was itself a misconduct and hence, the Labour Court and the HighCourt misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the passengers which was wholly not essential. Moreover, the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. This omission was sufficient to hold him guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a conductor because such action or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the appellant irrespective of the quantum. The order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court and its affirmation by the High Court is contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court. Even short remittance amounts to misconduct and, therefore, the impugned order ought not to have been passed by the Division Bench ordering reinstatement. Although pursuant to the order of the Labour Court, the respondent was reinstated in service, he had no legal right to continue in service any further. Therefore, the appellant Corporation is directed to immediately discharge the respondent from service. However, the salary paid to the respondent and other emoluments during that period should not be recovered from him....." 13. Although pursuant to the order of the Labour Court, the respondent was reinstated in service, he had no legal right to continue in service any further. Therefore, the appellant Corporation is directed to immediately discharge the respondent from service. However, the salary paid to the respondent and other emoluments during that period should not be recovered from him....." 13. In the decision reported in Regional Manager, Rsrtc Vs Ghanshyam Sharma (2002 (10) S.C.C. 330), the Supreme Court has held that the proved acts of misconduct either to a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and bus conductors who by their actions and inactions cause financial loss to the Corporation ought not to be retained in service. 14. The order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court and its affirmation by the High Court was set aside in Karnataka Srtc Vs B.S.Hullikatti ( 2001 (2) S.C.C. 574 ) wherein the Supreme Court has held that it is misplaced sympathy by the Labour Courts in calling lesser punishment where on checking, it was found that the bus conductors have either not issued tickets to a large number of passengers and deposit the same with the Corporation. The Bus conductors act in a fiduciary capacity and it would be a case of gross misconduct if knowingly they do not collect any fare or the correct amount of fare. The Supreme Court has finally held that the order of dismissal should not have been set aside by the Labour Court and High Court. 15. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further urged that under impression of getting leniency, the Petitioner has admitted the charges and that an opportunity is to be given to him and that he is to be reinstated into service and the Petitioner is prepared to forego the backwages. This contention does not impress the Court. The Petitioner being a Conductor, it was his responsibility to collect the correct fare from the passengers and deposit the same with the Company. Having not issued the tickets for a large number of passengers, with no other alternative, the Petitioner must have admitted the offence. Based on the evidence and upon consideration of all the aspects of the case, the Enquiry Officer found the Petitioner guilty of the charges and that the charges are proved which was rightly accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Having not issued the tickets for a large number of passengers, with no other alternative, the Petitioner must have admitted the offence. Based on the evidence and upon consideration of all the aspects of the case, the Enquiry Officer found the Petitioner guilty of the charges and that the charges are proved which was rightly accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The punishment of dismissal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges framed against the Petitioner. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.