JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THE appellant was appointed as a conductor on daily wage basis during the year 1994 and his name was sponsored by the employment exchange. ( 2. ) IT is the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that Articles of Charges were issued to him on 18. 11. 1998 alleging that he had failed to issue tickets to 2 passengers and no fare was collected and that he had not issued tickets to six passengers though he had collected the requisite fare of Rs. 15/- from them. The appellant-writ petitioner submitted his explanation denying the allegations levelled against him. The respondent not being satisfied by the explanation, appointed an enquiry officer. The enquiry officer held an enquiry and submitted his report on 27. 12. 1999 holding that the charges levelled against the appellant-writ petitioner were established. The respondent withdrew the said proceedings by endorsement dated 24. 7. 2002 and issued one more charge-sheet making identical allegations against the appellant-writ petitioner. After issuing the second Articles of Charges, the respondent conducted an enquiry and found the appellant-writ petitioner guilty of the charges leveled. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the enquiry officer and dismissed the appellant. As against the order of dismissal, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant raised an industrial dispute in I. D. No. 77 of 2006 (62/2004)before the 3rd Additional Labour Court, Bangalore. The Labour Court by the award dated 28. 4. 2007 dismissed the dispute. ( 3. ) AGGRIEVED by the award dated 28. 4. 2007, the appellant filed writ petition No. 19857 of 2007. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 19. 2. 2008 dismissed the writ petition holding that the award of the industrial Tribunal was just and proper. ( 4. ) HENCE the above writ appeal. Heard both the sides. ( 5. ) WE have given consideration to the submissions of both the sides, who have reiterated the submissions made before the learned Single Judge. ( 6. ) 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. ( 6. ) 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 and that the appellant-writ petitioner had not issued tickets to six passengers though he had collected the requisite fare of Rs. 15/-, the punishment of dismissal is shockingly disproportionate. In our considered opinion, the law on the point is well settled. In devendra Swamy Vs. 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. ( 7. ) IN the case of Regional Manager, Rajasthan State Road Transport corporation Vs. 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. ( 8. ) THE Apex Court in the case of Divisional Controller, KSRTC (NWKRTC) Vs. A. T. Mane, 2005 SCC (Lands) 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. 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. 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. " Again in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Dehradum Vs. 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 passenger 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. " ( 9. ) SIMILARLY, the same view was reiterated by the Apex Court in divisional Controller, N. E. K. R. T. C. Vs. 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. ( 10. 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. ( 10. ) 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. Accordingly, writ appeal is dismissed.