Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Presiding Officer, IInd Labour Court, Pune, setting aside the respondent no.1’s dismissal and directing payment of back wages at the rate of 50% from 8.6.1992 till 31.5.1996. 2. The respondent no.1 was charged with driving after having consumed alcohol. It may be noted that consumption of alcohol by a Driver is a stated misconduct vide clause 42 of the Acts of Misconducts under Schedule ‘A’ of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure for employees of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, which reads as follows:- "SCHEDULE ‘A’ (ACTS OF MISCONDUCTS) 42. Found to have consumed or being alcohol, liquor, intoxicants or any type of drug while on duty and/or outside the duty hours within the premises or vehicles of the Corporation." 3. The respondent no.1 was found having consumed alcohol to the extent that the reading in blood-test showed 0.069 mg. The respondent no.1 appeared unable to stand properly and while reversing the bus, which he was driving, his bus brushed with another bus. The Labour Court found that the charge of consuming liquor while on duty was established on the basis of oral and documentary evidence and also observed that the act amounts to indiscipline on the part of the respondent no.1. However, for some reasons not stated by it in the judgment, the Labour Court held that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate. 4. Mr.Hegde, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that in the circumstances of this case, punishment could not have been held to be shockingly disproportionate. According to the learned counsel, the Labour Court lost sight of the fact that the driver is responsible for the safety of the lives of many passengers and also others on the road; in fact, the Discipline and Appeal Rules take a serious view of such misconduct. Mr.Bapat, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, submitted that the view of the Labour Court is a plausible view, which need not be interfered with. 5. Having considered the submissions, I am of view that the order of the Labour Court which treats the punishment as shockingly disproportionate is liable to be interfered with. The proportionality of a punishment is best left to the employer in such cases. 5. Having considered the submissions, I am of view that the order of the Labour Court which treats the punishment as shockingly disproportionate is liable to be interfered with. The proportionality of a punishment is best left to the employer in such cases. Indeed, it is the employer who knows how to best assess the possible consequences of a particular misconduct and, where the safety and lives of passengers is concerned, the employer would be the best judge to determine whether the present misconduct warrants the punishment of dismissal having regard to its gravity and the possibility of it endangering more lives in the future. This, of course, does not mean that the employer is entitled to form such an opinion without adequate record. However, once such a record exists and the misconduct strands proved, it would not be for the Court to lightly interfere with the punishment and that too without giving reasons as in the impugned order. The impugned order, therefore, suffers from a serious error of law apparent on the face of the record and is, therefore, liable to be set aside. Order accordingly. The petitioner shall, however, forthwith release to the respondent no.1 the legal and permissible dues, if withheld. 6. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms.