Judgment :- P.D. Dinakaran, C.J. The appellant in this writ appeal was working as a Conductor in Channapatna Depot of Bangalore Rural Division. While he was conducting the bus on the route Kanakapura to Therubeedi on 13.06.2001, the vehicle was checked by the checking staff near Dodda Maralawadi at 8.35 a.m. and found that out of the 46 adults and 20 children travelling in the bus, the appellant had failed to issue tickets to 19 children travelling from Mallige Metlu to Dodda Maralawadi despite collecting the requisite fare of Rs.1/- each and further alleged that the appellant had neither collected the fare nor issued tickets to two passengers travelling from Agara to Dodda Maralawadi. The appellant submitted his reply denying the entire allegations. 2. An enquiry was initiated against the appellant by order dated 14.08.2001. The enquiry officer held the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him and dismissed him from service. 3. Challenging the said order of dismissal, the appellant filed I.D.No.30/92 before the 1st Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court rejected the plea of the appellant against which he preferred writ petition No.49285 of 2004. 4. The learned Single Judge dismissed the said writ petition by order dated 10.06.2008 against which this writ appeal is preferred. 5. Heard both the sides. 6. We have given consideration to the submissions of both the sides, who have reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge. 7. No illegality or irregularity in the impugned disciplinary proceeding is alleged on behalf of the appellant-writ petitioner. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner is to the quantum of punishment with reference to the charges in question. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the charges are relating to the non-issue tickets to 2 passengers and as no fare was collected, the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. 8. In our considered opinion, the law on the point is well settled. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since the charges are relating to the non-issue tickets to 2 passengers and as no fare was collected, the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. 8. In our considered opinion, the law on the point is well settled. In Devendra Swamy v. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation [ (2002) 9 SCC 644 ], the Apex Court, while dealing with the scope of judicial review, particularly with reference to the penalty or punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, held that it may not be proper for the High Court that once the charge of misconduct is proved and there is no illegality, after a due enquiry giving fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner in compliance with the principles of natural justice, it is immaterial whether the amount of defalcation is small and the penalty of dismissal is harsh. 9. In the case of Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Sohan Lal [ (2004) 8 SCC 218 ], the act of not issuing tickets to the passengers by the bus conductor, as in the instant case, was considered as a serious misconduct and the Apex Court held that such a conduct not only lead to the monetary loss to the Corporation, but also would amount to loss of confidence and therefore any order of reinstatement of such an employee by virtue of judicial order, is an act of misplaced sympathy which can find no foundation in law or in equity, hence the question of moulding the relief does not arise. 10. The Apex Court in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) v. A.T. Mane [2005 SCC (L&S) 407], has held as follows: "12. Coming to the question of quantum of punishment, one should bear in mind the fact that it is not the amount of money misappropriated that becomes a primary factor for awarding punishment; on the contrary, it is the loss of confidence which is the primary factor to be taken into consideration. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. 13. In our opinion, when a person is found guilty of misappropriating the corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the corporation losing confidence or faith in such a person and awarding a punishment of dismissal. 13. This Court in the case of B.S. Hullikatti held in similar circumstances that the act was either dishonest or was so grossly negligent that the respondent therein was not fit to be retained as a conductor. It also held that in such cases there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and thereby interfere with the quantum of punishment." 11. Again in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradum v. Suresh Pal [ (2006) 8 SCC 108 ] where a similar question arose as to whether the punishment of dismissal awarded to a conductor who was guilty of non-issuing the ticket as disproportionate, it is held as follows: "7. ..... So far as the guilt of the petitioner is concerned, in the domestic enquiry it has been found that the petitioner is guilty of not issuing tickets to the twenty passengers and the same finding of the domestic enquiry has been upheld by Labour Court in the High Court. The petitioner was a Conductor and holding the position of trust. If an incumbent like the petitioner starts misappropriating the money by not issuing a ticket and pocketing the money thereby causing loss to the Corporation then this is a serious misconduct." 12. Similarly, the same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh [ (2006) 6 SCC 187 ] holding that when an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation's funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. 13. In view of the above well-settled law laid down by the Apex Court, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 14. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.