Judgment :- 1. Misc. Writ No.80322/10 is filed for condoning the delay of 957 days in filing the appeal. The delay of 957 days has been explained in the affidavit dated 15.3.2010 filed by the appellant along with the application stating that, the writ petition filed has been disposed of on 21.6.2007, though his counsel had obtained the certified copy in the month of September 2007, due to inadvertence on the part of clerk of his counsel, the disposal of the case etc, was not communicated to him till June 2009. Thereafter, when he personally went to Bangalore in the month of June 2009, he was informed that the writ petition has already been disposed in the month of June 2007 and he is supposed to file writ appeal and also told he can file the appeal at Bangalore. Immediately thereafter, arranging with money in the month of August 2009, he had been to Bangalore but the clerk of his counsel told him that the appeal cannot be filed at Bangalore and will have to be filed only at Gulbarga. Because of the inadvertence on the part of his counsel at Bangalore in communicating the fact of disposal of the case and because of confusion as to whether the appeal could be filed at Bangalore or Gulbarga, he could not file the appeal within time. Further, he has stated that, there was absolutely negligence on his pat in prosecuting his case and he was all along diligent and alert in prosecuting his case and if the delay in preferring the appeal is condoned, no prejudice or bias would be caused to the respondent’s case. On the other hand, much prejudice and hardship will be caused to him and he ha fairly good chances of getting through in the appeal. 2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant at a considerable length of time and after perusal of the statement made in the affidavit filed along with the application dated 15.3.2010 for condoning the delay of 957 days, the said delay has not been satisfactorily explained nor sufficient cause has been made out except making omnibus statement that, due to inadvertence on the part of the clerk, it was not communicated to him, therefore, the delay has been caused and he was diligent and alert in prosecuting his case. The statement made is astonishing in nature for the reason that, there is inordinate delay of 957 days in filing the appeal. The delay is explained without assigning any valid reasons except making bald statement and even he is not bothered to file the affidavit of the clerk who could not communicate him or the learned counsel representing him in the writ petition and even he has gone to explain that he has filed the affidavit on oath. He has not pleaded that, the delay may be condoned in the interest of justice and that the delay is not intentional or deliberate but is bonafide in nature. Such reasoning given in the affidavit at para Nos.2 to 9 cannot be acceptable. In view of the well settled law laid down by the Apex Court and this Court in catena of judgments, the appellant is bound to explain each day delay by assigning valid reasons. So, we are of the considered view that, it is not a fit case to consider the statement made in the affidavit for condoning the delay nor we can give any credibility to the statement made in the affidavit. 3. For the foregoing reasons, miscellaneous writ No.80322/10 is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. However, in the interest of justice, we have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, 4. On 26.8.2010, during the course of the submission, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation, at the outset, submitted that, the appellant was involved in more than 62 offences committed and is a habitual offender. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, in the interest of justice, the Court may call for the service register in respect of the appellant maintained in the respondent-Corporation. Accordingly, in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant, we have called for the service register which has been made available to us on 7.9.2010. On careful microscopic evaluation of each page of the service register, what emerges is that, out of 62 cases involved, in 30 cases the increments and imposition of fine has been ordered and remaining cases are minor in nature. He has been warned and directed to motivate and improve and render his services to the Corporation sincerely and honestly. On careful microscopic evaluation of each page of the service register, what emerges is that, out of 62 cases involved, in 30 cases the increments and imposition of fine has been ordered and remaining cases are minor in nature. He has been warned and directed to motivate and improve and render his services to the Corporation sincerely and honestly. Inspite of giving sufficient time from 1991 upto 2000, he has not changed his mental set up nor shown any improvements in his service. 5. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both the counsel and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence and other materials on file, has allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned award passed by the Labour Court by assigning valid reasons in paragraphs 3 to 6 of the order. We do not find any error of law or material irregularity as such committed. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge in his order, the reinstatement directed by the Labour Court is wholly perverse and unfair to the respondent-Corporation, who is burdened with the dishonest employee, whose misconduct stands proved. The case law in this regard is in favour of the Corporation, which the Labour Court has completely overlooked. The circumstances of the case do not require the Labour Court to consider the proportionality of the order of punishment. The misconduct warranted the extreme measure of dismissal and the settled principles, in so far as interference of courts on the ground that, the punishment is disproportionate to the offence, was not available in the present case which is a glaring circumstance that would require interference of this Court exercising power as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. It is not a fit case to exercise such power to the person who is inobedient, irresponsible and dishonest to his conscious and not having respect to his employer where he is working, which is nothing but the Road Transport Corporation. He is a guardian to the passengers and being a conductor, he is bound to do his duty consciously. Each day, his work can be appreciated by the passengers who board the bus. But, his sincerity and obedience is not forth-coming, when he is discharging his duties. He is a guardian to the passengers and being a conductor, he is bound to do his duty consciously. Each day, his work can be appreciated by the passengers who board the bus. But, his sincerity and obedience is not forth-coming, when he is discharging his duties. This fact has been rightly taken into consideration by the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority has passed the order of dismissal against the petitioner. The same has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact, the Labour Court has committed a grave error and proceeded to allow the reference application filed by the appellant, ordering reinstatement inspite of recording finding of fact and after evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence that, the appellant was carrying an excess cash of Rs.672/-and he has been found in possession of excess cash and that he has not taken prior permission from the concerned competent authority before taking charge as a conductor for a bus on a particular route on a particular date. As a matter of fact, as per the relevant regulations of the respondent-Corporation, he is bound to bring it to the notice of the concerned authority and make a statement in writing and sign the register for having carried personal money for his personal use. This fact has neither been looked into nor considered by the Labour Court. Even, the Labour Court has failed to take into consideration the reason assigned for dismissal of service by the Disciplinary Authority. He has not whispered a word in the entire order about the same. This relevant factor has been rightly considered by the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge has set aside the order of the Labour Court and confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority. 6. In view of the concurrent finding of fact and after re-appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, we are of the considered view that, interference by this Court exercising powers as envisaged under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, is not warranted. We do not find any case as such made out by the appellant. Therefore, the writ appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we decline to consider the relief sought in the writ appeal. We do not find any case as such made out by the appellant. Therefore, the writ appeal filed by the appellant is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Hence, we decline to consider the relief sought in the writ appeal. For the foregoing reasons, the instant writ appeal filed by the appellant stands dismissed on delay and laches and also on merits.