Judgment :- 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the State Transport Corporation, Salem challenging the order passed by the Labour Court modifying the order of dismissal of the second respondent from service. 2. The second respondent was working as a conductor in the petitioners Corporation from 15.12.1981. On 20.08.1997, he was alloted the work in the bus bearing No.TN27/N0210 plying in Vaazhapadi to Attur route. It was checked by the checking squad at 6.10 am at Attur. The ticket examiners on inspection found that the conductor of the bus/second respondent herein collected Re.1/- each from two passengers, namely husband and wife, and issued the ticket for the value of 0.75paise each and thereby he is said to have misappropriated 0.50paise by refusing to return 0.50paise to the passengers. Therefore, he was issued with a charge memo dated 21.08.1997 calling for explanation. As his explanation offered by the workman was not satisfactory, a domestic enquiry was conducted in which the workman fully participated. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved. On the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the past record of service, a second show cause notice dated 20.04.1998 was issued proposing the punishment of dismissal. On receipt of the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the second respondent, passed an order of termination from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court. The only point raised before the labour court was that the punishment of dismissal passed by the petitioner/corporation against the second respondent was not proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Therefore, the disproportionate punishment imposed by the petitioner/corporation against the second respondent was said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 3. The learned Labour Court, by taking into account, the past record of service as well as the punishment suffered by the second respondent, modified the punishment of dismissal into one of reinstatement without backwages. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the Transport Corporation. 4. After hearing the parties from both sides, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court for more than one reason. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed by the Transport Corporation. 4. After hearing the parties from both sides, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court for more than one reason. The second respondent was charge sheeted for not returning 50 paise to two passengers, namely, husband and wife, who travelled in the bus bearing No.TN27/N0210 plying from Vaazhapadi to Attur route. The second respondent received the show cause notice from the petitioner/management for which he submitted his explanation admitting the fact that two passengers boarded the bus in which he was serving as a conductor at the Udayapalayam stage and he also admitted that he has issued the correct ticket to the passengers. 5. The second respondent further admitted in his explanation that the two passengers, namely, the husband and wife, boarded the bus at Udayapalayam, Gandhi Statue Stage and he issued 75 paise ticket each after having received Rs.2/- from them and immediately he is said to have handed over the balance amount to the passengers. The Ex.R1, the ticket examiner, has stated that the passengers who boarded at Narasingapuram Kamaraj Statue stage, were issued with lesser fare tickets. However, the case of the second respondent was that the passengers, inspite of stating that they have boarded the bus at Udayapalayam and Gandhi Statue stage have really boarded at Narasingapuram. But, only on the basis of the statement of the passengers, the ticket examiner has come to a wrong conclusion that the petitioner was issued with tickets for a lesser value. Therefore, in view of the above said confession, the petitioner was charge sheeted for misappropriation of 50 paise only. 6. However, in any event, when the Enquiry Officer after completing the enquiry submitted the report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, yet, the Disciplinary Authority should not have imposed the major punishment of the order of dismissal from service for having committed a minor mistake. This does not mean that the second respondent should be allowed to give lesser amount for the ticket. This does not mean that the second respondent should be allowed to give lesser amount for the ticket. The Disciplinary Authority who have got ample powers to punish this type of misconducts could have punished suitably in some other manner while punishing the errant conductor for the proved mis-conduct, therefore I am of the considered view that the Disciplinary Authority wrongly imposed a major penalty by issuing the dismissal order for not returning 0.25 paise each to two passengers. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment awarded being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, and such infirmity of imposing excessive punishment has already been rectified by the Labour Court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the Labour Court which has rightly modified the order of punishment of dismissal into one of reinstatement without back wages. Therefore, in my view, the impugned order does not call for interference. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petitions are closed.