Judgment :- The appellant is a driver employed by the respondent. While on duty on 28.09.1998, he consumed liquor and picked up quarrel and misbehaved with the passengers. This constitutes misconduct under Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct & Discipline) Regulations 1971 (for short ‘the Regulations’). The Peenya police registered a case and arrested him. During the course of investigation by the police, he was subjected to breath analysis test at K.C. General Hospital and it was found that, the petitioner had consumed alcohol. Charge sheet was filed in C.C.24520/1998 and the petitioner was produced before the Court, where he admitted the guilt and was sentenced to pay fine, which he remitted. An articles of charge was issued alleging that, the petitioner failed to discharge his duty as responsible worker of the Corporation, misbehaved with the public and caused not only inconvenience to the traveling public, but also financial loss to the Corporation, which was highly deplorable and against the conduct and discipline of the Corporation. The matter was subjected to an enquiry. The petitioner participated in the enquiry along with a coworker. The Enquiry Officer submitted report that, the matter can be dealt under Regulation 28. A show cause notice dated 31.08.1999 was issued, to which the petitioner did not submit any explanation. The Disciplinary Authority in exercise of the power under Regulation 28(1) of the Regulations, passed an order of dismissal dated 31.01.2000. 2. An industrial dispute having arisen, the Government made a reference to the Labour Court, Bangalore, for adjudication of the points of dispute. The petitioner filed claim statement and the respondent filed counter statement. The Labour Court noticing the charge sheeting of the petitioner by the police, the imposition of sentence of fine and the remittance of fine and the fact of the petitioner not replying to the show cause notice and also having failed to participate in the proceedings before it and in the absence of any other evidence, rejected the reference and passed the award. Aggrieved, the workman has filed this writ petition. 3. Aggrieved, the workman has filed this writ petition. 3. Sri S.B. Mukkannappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at the out-set submitted that, the challenge to the finding of misconduct recorded by the Disciplinary Authority with which the Labour Court concurred is given up and the challenge in the writ petition is confined to the quantum of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and not interfered with by the Labour Court in exercise of the power under S.11-A of the Act. Learned counsel submitted that, the petitioner has no past history and hence, the punishment imposed is harsh and disproportionate. Reliance was placed on an order dated 26.05.2010 passed in WP 5548/2009, which was affirmed in WA 3227/2010 vide judgment dated 03.01.2011 (NEKRTC VS. P. PAMPANNA, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs). 4. Mr. E.R. Diwakar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that, in view of the challenge to the finding of misconduct recorded by the Disciplinary Authority with which the Labour Court concurred being given up, the proved misconduct being of grave nature, the Labour Court is justified in not exercising its power under S.11-A of the Act, to interfere with the just punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision in the case of Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Punjab National Bank – ( 2010 (8) SCC 573 ). 5. I have perused the record. In view of the rival contentions, the point for consideration is: 6. Indisputedly, Peenya police registered a case for a charge under S.92 (o) & (p) of Karnataka Police Act, arrested the petitioner, conducted the investigation and filed the charge sheet in the III Metropolitan Magistrate Traffic Court, Bangalore. The petitioner was produced before the Magistrate. The petitioner pleaded guilty and was sentenced to pay fine. Though disciplinary enquiry was initiated by issue of an articles of charge and was conducted, in view of the report of the Enquiry Officer that, the case can be dealt under Regulation 28, show cause notice dated 31.08.1999 was issued to the petitioner, alleging violation of Regulation 7(1) (a) & (b) of the Regulations, why he should not be dismissed from the service of the Corporation. The petitioner did not submit any explanation. The petitioner did not submit any explanation. The fact of the petitioner having been convicted and sentenced to pay fine having not been disputed and even otherwise being well established, the order dated 31.01.2000 was passed, dismissing the petitioner from service. 7. There is no dispute that, the petitioner while on duty consumed liquor, used filthy language and misbehaved with the passengers. In my opinion, a driver of a passenger bus or for that matter any mechanically propelled vehicle cannot and should not consume intoxicating liquor while on duty because that endangers the safety not only of those in the vehicle but those using the roads also. That apart, the petitioner used filthy language and misbehaved with the passengers in the bus. The undisputed misconduct is grave in nature. 8. In a case of present type, was the Labour Court required to exercise its jurisdiction under S.11-A of the Act and interfere with the quantum of punishment is the only question, which arises for determination, keeping in view the submission made by Sri. S.B. Mukkannappa. 9. In WP 5548/2009 (supra), the workman was an Artisan in NEKRTC. On 26.02.1997, he was found under influence of alcohol and misbehaved with the staff and superiors of the Management. A complaint came to be lodged with the police by the Depot Manager, who registered a case and the workman was convicted S.252 Cr.P.C for the offences under S.92(o) (p) & (r) of Karnataka Police Act. The workman was sentenced to pay fine of Rs.100/-, based on which, the Management issued articles of charge. However, enquiry was dispensed with and based on the articles of charge, the workman was dismissed from service, which order was questioned in the Labour Court. During the pendency of the matter, the workman died and his legal representatives prosecuted the matter. The Labour Court set-aside the order of dismissal and directed the Management to treat the deceased as in employment till the date of his death, pay 25% backwages and extend consequential benefits. The said award when questioned by the Management, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that, the offence under S.92 of the Karnataka Police Act is a petty offence, the workman had no past history and the Labour court is justified in holding that the order of dismissal bad in the eye of law. The said award when questioned by the Management, the writ petition was dismissed on the ground that, the offence under S.92 of the Karnataka Police Act is a petty offence, the workman had no past history and the Labour court is justified in holding that the order of dismissal bad in the eye of law. Whether the Labour Court is justified in not exercising the power under S.11-A of the Act and interfering with the punishment of dismissal imposed by the Disciplinary Authority? W.A 3227/2010 filed by the Management was dismissed at the preliminary hearing stage. The said order and the judgment, in my opinion, have no application to the case on hand. The workman involved therein was an ‘Artisan’ and he was not driving the vehicle in public by consuming intoxication liquor. A fact situation obtaining in one case cannot be said to be a precedent for another. 10. Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, no doubt, vests the Labour Court with discretion to substitute the order of discharge or dismissal of a workman into an order of reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. 11. The charge against the petitioner was that, while on duty he was in a drunken state and used filthy language and misbehaved with the passengers. It was certainly a serious charge of misconduct against the petitioner. The allegation leveled was not denied and even otherwise, in view of the pleading of guilt and order of sentence passed by the Criminal Court, the misconduct has stood proved and the challenge put forth to the finding of misconduct was given up. In the circumstances, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is not ‘shockingly disproportionate’ for interfering in exercise of the power under S.11-A of the Act, as the act of driving a passenger vehicle in drunken state was not only endangerous to the safety of those in the vehicle, but also those using the roads. 12. In the circumstances, the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is not ‘shockingly disproportionate’ for interfering in exercise of the power under S.11-A of the Act, as the act of driving a passenger vehicle in drunken state was not only endangerous to the safety of those in the vehicle, but also those using the roads. 12. Regulation 7 is with regard to consumption of intoxicating drinks and drugs and the same reads as follows: (1) A Corporation servant shall – (a) Strictly abide by the law relating to intoxicating drinks or drugs in force in any area in which he may happen to be for the time being; (b) Not be under the influence of any intoxicating drink or drug during the course of his duty and shall also take due care that the performance of his duties at any time is not affected in any way by the influence of any intoxicating drink or drug. (2) A Corporation servant shall not – (a) appear in a public place in a state of intoxication. (b) if he is Driver or Conductor have taken or used any intoxicating drink or drug within eight hours of the commencement of duty or take such drink or drug during the course of duty. 13. The Regulation has been framed not only in the interest of the Corporation, but also keeping in view the safety of passengers in the vehicle and also the users of the roads. Indisputedly, the petitioner has violated the said Regulation. 14. In Sushil Kumar Singhal (supra), it has been held as follows: “25. In view of the above, it is evident that moral turpitude means anything contrary to honesty, modesty or good morals. It means vileness and depravity. In fact, the conviction of a person in a crime involving moral turpitude impeaches his credibility as he has been found to have indulged in shameful, wicked and base activities.” 15. In view of the above discussion, the impugned award is flawless. In the result, the writ petition being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. No costs.