JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, J. This Letters Patent Appeal by the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (HRTC) is directed against the judgment dated 17.5.2007 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court whereby he dismissed the writ petition filed by the HRTC and upheld the award of the Labour Court-cum- Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala dated 23.4.2005. 2. Two grounds have been raised by the HRTC. The first ground is that both the Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge erred in holding that the Regional Manager was not authorised as per the Rules of the Corporation to order the removal of a Conductor and that only a Divisional Manager could exercise such powers. The second contention raised by the HRTC is that the Tribunal gravely erred in holding that this was the first instance where the employee was found to be indulging in ticket less travelling and therefore the penalty of removal from service was disproportionate. 3. As far as the first question is concerned, it is totally a legal issue. The question is whether the Regional Manager was competent to impose major penalty of removal from service on a conductor. Sh.Varinder Singh Kanwar, learned counsel for the respondent employee placed reliance on certain Rules which are in a printed booklet purported to be issued on 18.10.1996, whereas Sh.R.K. Gautam, learned senior counsel relied upon Annexure P-4 annexed with the writ petition. However, in Annexure P-4 it is not clear which is the authority competent to impose minor penalty and which is the authority competent to impose major penalty. We had therefore directed the Managing Director of the HRTC to file a fresh affidavit alongwith Rules existing from time to time. This affidavit has been filed and the relevant portion of the Himachal Road Transport Corporation (Class-I, II, III & IV) Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Certain Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1996 have been placed on record. As far as Drivers/ Conductors/junior Technicians are concerned the schedule of powers of appointments, discipline, appeals etc. is as follows: "SCHEDULE OF POWERS OF APPOINTMENTS, DISCIPLINE, APPEALS ETC. As far as Drivers/ Conductors/junior Technicians are concerned the schedule of powers of appointments, discipline, appeals etc. is as follows: "SCHEDULE OF POWERS OF APPOINTMENTS, DISCIPLINE, APPEALS ETC. IN HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Category of post Authority competent to make appointment Nature of the penalty in relation to Rule-11 of the CCS (CC&A) Authority Competent to impose the penalty Appellate Authority 1 2 3 4 5 (A) to (F) xxxx,xxxx,xxxxx,xxxxx,xxxx, (G) Drivers/Conductors/Jr.Technicians Dy.General Manager/ Dy.Divisional Manager/Regional Manager/ Manager (Tech) or equivalent officers of these cadre or Head of offices. (i) to (iv) ] (v) to (ix) ] Dy.General Manager/Dy.Divisional Manager/Regional Manager (Tech) or equivalent officers of these cadre or Head of office General Manager/divisional Manager Concerned 4. Thus, for the categories of Drivers/Conductors/Jr.Technicians the major and minor penalties i.e. penalties (i) to (iv) and (v) to (ix) were clubbed together and thus the Dy. General Manager/ Dy.Divisional Manager/ Regional Manager/ Manager (Tech) or equivalent officers of these cadre or Head of offices could impose major or minor penalties upon a conductor. It appears that correct Rules were not brought to the notice of the Labour Court nor were they placed before the learned Single Judge. Be that as it may, when we are dealing with the legal question as to who has the power to impose the penalty, we have to go by the Rules and the Rules as placed on the file clearly indicates that the Regional Manager was one of the authorities empowered to impose major penalty upon a conductor. 5. In the inquiry report it stood proved that the employee was a conductor in the bus which was going from Kangra to Jammu. The bus was checked after it had travelled 17 k.ms and 17 passengers were found without ticket. Out of these, 12 passengers had paid the fare amounting to 54/- and five passengers who were to travel from Kangra to Jammu had still to pay the fare of 40/- each. The Inquiry Officer held that it stood proved on record that the employee had embezzled an amount of 54/- and was attempting to embezzle the balance amount of 200/-. Neither the Labour Court nor the learned Single Judge has gone into the merits of the case and the finding of the Inquiry Officer has not been set-aside. Indeed such a finding cannot normally be set-aside by the Labour Court. Neither the Labour Court nor the learned Single Judge has gone into the merits of the case and the finding of the Inquiry Officer has not been set-aside. Indeed such a finding cannot normally be set-aside by the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that the penalty of removal from service was highly disproportionate only on the ground that this was the first offence committed by the employee. How the Labour Court came to this conclusion is not very clear. 6. The HRTC alongwith the writ petition filed by it placed on record Annexure P-5 showing that on as many as 15 occasions penalties were imposed upon the employee and on two occasions show cause notice was issued but proceedings did not culminate because in the meantime the petitioner was removed from service. It is not clear why the first five penalties were imposed. However, it is apparent that on as many as 9 occasions, the employee was found guilty of embezzling the funds when ticketless travelers were found travelling in the bus from whom the employee had got the fare and as mentioned above in two cases notices were issued to him. If this be the history of the employee, there is no reason why the employer should be compelled to retain the employee in service. In this behalf, reference may be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in Divisional Controller N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H.Amaresh, AIR 2006 SC 2730 , wherein it was held as follows: "18. Once a domestic Tribunal based on evidence comes to a particular conclusion normally it is not open to the tribunal and courts to substitute their subjective opinion in place of the one arrived at by the domestic tribunal. 19. to 21 xxxxx 22. In the instant case, even though charge No.4 has been proved beyond any doubt, the Labour Court taking a lenient and sympathetic view, passed certain directions which were modified by the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench. While entertaining this special leave petition, this Court has only ordered notice to the respondent. 19. to 21 xxxxx 22. In the instant case, even though charge No.4 has been proved beyond any doubt, the Labour Court taking a lenient and sympathetic view, passed certain directions which were modified by the learned Single Judge and of the Division Bench. While entertaining this special leave petition, this Court has only ordered notice to the respondent. The order of the High Court and of the Division Bench has not been stayed even though the Division Bench observed that having regard to the gravity of the charges proved against the respondent, it would be in the interest of justice to modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent he has directed the appellant-Corporation to pay 25% back wages. The Division Bench deleted the direction in regard to the payment of back wages but retained the order in regard to the reinstatement. The said order is ex-facie illegal and contrary to the principles laid down by the various decisions of this Court which have been referred to in paragraphs supra and also on the proved facts and circumstances of the case. Having accepted all the facts that the charges of short remittance was proved and yet the learned single Judge and the learned Judges of the Division Bench proceeded to pass an order ordering reinstatement which clearly goes against the mandate of the various judgments of this Court. 23. In our view, even short remittance amounts to mis-conduct and, therefore, applying the rulings of this Court, the impugned order ought not to have been passed by the Division Bench ordering reinstatement. We, therefore, have no hesitation to set aside the order passed by the learned Judges of the Division Bench and restore the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. It is stated that pursuant to the order of the Labour Court the respondent was reinstated in service. Since there was no stay granted by this Court the respondent had continued in service of the Corporation. In view of the law laid down by this Court and of the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent, in our opinion, has no legal right to continue in service any further. We, therefore, direct the appellant-Corporation to immediately discharge the respondent from service. In view of the law laid down by this Court and of the facts and circumstances of this case, the respondent, in our opinion, has no legal right to continue in service any further. We, therefore, direct the appellant-Corporation to immediately discharge the respondent from service. However, we make it clear that the salary paid to the respondent and other emoluments during this period shall not be recovered from the respondent. We also make it further clear that in view of the order of dismissal the respondent shall not be entitled to any further emoluments." 7. In view of the above discussion, we are of the considered view that the Labour Court erred in passed the impugned award and setting aside the termination of service of the employee. The learned Single Judge upheld the award but mainly on the ground that the Regional Manager did not have jurisdiction to terminate the services of the employee. As held by us above, the Rules clearly provide that the Regional Manager was authorised to impose major penalty. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge as well as the Award of the Labour Court are set-aside. No costs.