JUDGMENT V. Suri Appa Rao , J.—The appellant filed writ petition No. 5205/2010 to quash the impugned order dated 18.11.2006 passed by the 1st Additional Labour Court, Bangalore at Annexure 'B' to the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the charge levelled against the appellant is of serious in nature and that the appellant had not denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded guilty and the Criminal Court passed order imposing fine for the misbehaviour with the public. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellant filed this appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The appellant as is Driver in the respondent-Corporation. On 28-9-1998 while he was on duty he consumed liquor and picked up quarrel and misbehaved with the passengers. Therefore, a complaint is given to the Peenya Police, the Police registered a case and arrested him. During the course of investigation he was subjected to breath analysis test at K.C. General Hospital and it was found that appellant had consumed alcohol while on duty as a Driver. Thereafter, Peenya Police filed charge-sheet in C.C. No. 24520/1998 and the appellant, was produced before the Criminal Court and when he was questioned about the charges levelled against him he voluntarily admitted the guilt and that the Trial Court has passed sentence against him and directed him to pay fine. Subsequently, the respondent-Corporation initiated enquiry and the appellant participated in the enquiry along with his co-worker. After the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Corporation. Thereafter, the Corporation issued a show-cause notice dated 31.8.1999 for which the appellant did not choose to submit any explanation. The Disciplinary Authority therefore, exercising the power vested with it, passed an order of dismissal on 31.1.2000. Thereafter, an Industrial Dispute was referred before the Labour Court, Bangalore by the appellant for adjudication of the points in dispute. The Labour Court after considering the charges levelled against the appellant and the imposition of sentence on him, rejected the reference and passed award .Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which came to be dismissed. 2. The Labour Court after considering the charges levelled against the appellant and the imposition of sentence on him, rejected the reference and passed award .Aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, the appellant filed the writ petition before the learned Single Judge, which came to be dismissed. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant has voluntarily confessed about the commission of the offence, he did not contest the case in Criminal case, the charge levelled against the appellant is a trivial in nature and does not warrant maximum punishment of dismissal from services. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside. 3. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent-Corporation submitted that the appellant who was employed as Driver in the Corporation, not only consumed liquor on 28.9.1998 while on duty but also picked up quarrel and misbehaved with the passengers in the bus. 4. The appellant when produced before the Peenya Police who registered a case against the appellant and subjected the appellant for breath analysis test and it is proved that he was in a drunken state at the time of test. Thereafter, when the Peenya Police filed charge-sheet against him for which he voluntarily confessed and admitted the offence committed by him and paid fine imposed by the Criminal Court. The appellant being a Driver of the bus carrying number of passengers while on duty is not expected to consume liquor, playing with lives of the innocent passengers. Moreover, the charge levelled against the appellant clearly indicates that the appellant had also picked up quarrel with the passengers and misbehaved with some of the passengers. 5. In that view of the matter, the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Labour Court are justified in imposing the punishment of dismissal The learned Single Judge having held that the appellant has pleaded guilty before the Trial Court about his misconduct and also held that the appellant being a Driver, driving the Bus in drunken state, is a serious cause for misconduct. consequently dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant who was entrusted with the duty of Driving the vehicle carrying number of passengers is not expected to consume liquor while on duty. consequently dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant who was entrusted with the duty of Driving the vehicle carrying number of passengers is not expected to consume liquor while on duty. The punishment of dismissal imposed by the respondent-Corporation is warrants no interference by this Court. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed as there are no merits in the appeal.