ORDER : 1. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The writ petitioner/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation stated that the second respondent herein/employee was working as a conductor in the bus route from Vanniambadi to Alangayam in bus bearing registration No. TN-23-0565 and at the time of checking it was found that he did not collect fare and issue tickets for five passengers for a sum of Rs. 3/- for each, even after they having traveled for two stages from their boarding point and not issued luggage tickets for 10 jaggery bags for a sum of Rs. 6/- for each bag, after collecting the fares and failed to collect the fare and issue ticket of Rs. 2.75/- to one passenger traveling from Alangayam to Arinayakanoor, even though the passenger travelled for two stages from his boarding point and also found that there was a shortage of Rs. 148.80 in the cash bag. So, a charge memo dated 08.05.2000 was issued to him. The second respondent in his explanation dated 20.05.2000 had admitted his irregularities. Subsequently, a domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Enquiry Officer had submitted his report finding him guilty of all the charges. Based on the enquiry findings and considering his past records, he was issued with the second show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from service, for which, he had submitted his explanation. As there was no valid point for consideration in his explanation and considering the grave nature of offence, he was dismissed from service on 02.05.2001. Against the order of dismissal, the appeal preferred by the second respondent was also rejected. 2. It is submitted that the second respondent had raised an Industrial Dispute before the first respondent. The first respondent, after taking into account the oral and documentary evidence had taken the view that the domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court has observed that it would be correct if the enquiry findings is to the effect that the conductor had failed to collect the fare for the luggages and issue tickets for the luggages. The Labour Court has observed that it would be correct if the enquiry findings is to the effect that the conductor had failed to collect the fare for the luggages and issue tickets for the luggages. The Labour Court has further taken the view that non-issuing of tickets, without stopping the bus between two stages was only in order to compete with the private bus operators and further observed that even though there is shortage in the cash bag, the conductor has to reimburse it at the time of settling the account and hence, held that the punishment of dismissal from service is harsh and also excessive in nature and directed the Transport Corporation to reinstate the second respondent-conductor with continuity of service with attendant benefits and with 75% back wages. 3. Aggrieved by the above order of the first respondent/Labour Court, the petitioner/ Transport Corporation has filed the above writ to call for the records of the first respondent in I.D. No. 97 of 2002 and quash the said orders. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner/Transport Corporation argued that the learned Labour Court judge ought not to have re-appreciated the findings in the domestic enquiry. The second respondent had himself admitted the charges and as such, the Labour Court ought not to have ordered reinstatement of the second respondent herein. The Labour Court findings has been made without relying on any documentary evidence. The second respondent's past records are not satisfactorily since he had committed similar nature of offences. Hence, the dismissal order has been passed. The dismissal order can be passed against the insufficiency of employee or corrupt practice of employee. In the instant case, the second respondent had committed corrupt practice in his service. Therefore, the highest punishment of dismissal from service is appropriate for better administration. Therefore, harsh punishment does not apply in this case. As such, the first respondent's order directing writ petitioner/Transport Corporation to reinstate the second respondent, with continuity of service and other attendant benefits and with 75% back wages is not sustainable under law. The learned counsel for the Corporation further argued that from the date of appointment, the second respondent did not attend his job properly. There are four charges against him. On 20.04.2000, the petitioner took the bus bearing registration No. TN-23-0565-route No. 90A- from Vaniyambadi to Alangayam. The learned counsel for the Corporation further argued that from the date of appointment, the second respondent did not attend his job properly. There are four charges against him. On 20.04.2000, the petitioner took the bus bearing registration No. TN-23-0565-route No. 90A- from Vaniyambadi to Alangayam. The checking squad checked the bus in the middle of the 11th and 12th stages at 3.30 p.m. While checking the passengers tickets and conductor's cash bag, it was found that he did not collect fare and issue tickets for five passengers for a sum of Rs. 3/- for each, even after they have travelled for two stages from their boarding point and not issued luggage tickets for 10 jaggery bags for a sum of Rs. 6/- for each bag, after collecting the fares and failed to collect the fare and issue ticket of Rs. 2.75/- to one passenger travelling from Alangayam to Arinayakanoor. Even after the bus had passed two stages and the checking squad checked the cash bag with the ticket bundle issued at the time of change of duty and the tickets sold after verifying the cash bag and the ticket, there was a deficiency of Rs. 148.80/- for which the checking squad issued disciplinary memo on the same day i.e., on 20.04.2000, which was received by the employee. Then the squad collected the bus fare each of Rs. 3 from the passengers and seized the tickets Z-571-034, 051, 016, 017, 018, 019, which is not produced the 10 jaggery bag luggages of each Rs. 6/- was collected and seized the tickets Z517-038020 to 038039 i.e. 20, Rs. 3/- tickets, which is not punched and another ticket for Rs. 2.75 issued to a passenger from Alangayam to Arinayakanoor and the squad gave the special complaint to the management on the same day i.e. 20.04.2000. Then the Management issued special report of charges and suspension order dated 25.04.2000. As such, the irregularities committed by the second respondent has been proved through substantial material evidence. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that the charge memo was issued on 08.05.2000 and the second respondent submitted his explanation letter to the Corporation on 20.05.2000, admitting the said irregularities, with excuse which is not satisfactory to the Management Corporation, since the erring employee had committed a serious nature of offence and caused revenue loss to the transport Corporation for his personal gain. As such, it was found that a fraud had been committed by the employee. The Corporation then ordered domestic enquiry and the Enquiry Officer held the enquiry on 25.09.2000 and the employee and one driver, Mahendiran, one Radhakrishnan, one Paneerselvam, Checking Inspector appeared for enquiry and the said Radhakrishnan gave the evidence before the Enquiry Officer regarding the charges against the petitioner and the Checking Inspector was cross-examined by the second respondent herein and the second respondent was examined. He stated that he had already given a statement which has to be treated as evidence of the second respondent, in which the second respondent admitted, in cross-examination, about the non-issuing of tickets for the said 10 luggages and stated that he does not need any further evidence and signed in the inquiry proceedings. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that after the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, before passing the finding, gave proper opportunities to both the parties to contest the enquiry and finally concluded that the charges are proved and sent the findings to the Corporation. The Management of State Transport Corporation after receiving the findings and after going through the entire records of the employee sent the show cause notice to the employee about the charges from 08.03.2000 to 20.04.2000 and the employee gave the explanation for the said show cause notice which is contradictory to the explanation given earlier to the Management and the Management, after careful consideration with documents issued termination order to the employee on 02.05.2001, which is an appropriate one. 7. The learned counsel for the second respondent argued that the employee had been appointed as conductor on 22.03.1999, on daily wage basis. The Corporation had issued a memo on 20.04.2000, stating that the employee had committed some irregularities for non-issuing of tickets and for not collecting fares from passengers and for luggages and also charged that a sum of Rs. 148.80/- was found short in the conductor's cash bag. On the basis of charge memo dated 20.04.2000, enquiry was conducted. The employee also had admitted the charges. Even then, a domestic enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the Transport Corporation issued second show cause notice on 10.11.2000 and leveled another four charges, viz. (1) On 08.03.2000, there was shortage of funds of a sum of Rs. On the basis of charge memo dated 20.04.2000, enquiry was conducted. The employee also had admitted the charges. Even then, a domestic enquiry was conducted. Thereafter, the Transport Corporation issued second show cause notice on 10.11.2000 and leveled another four charges, viz. (1) On 08.03.2000, there was shortage of funds of a sum of Rs. 102/- (2) On 30.11.1999, he took the trip 40 minutes earlier to scheduled time (3) On 29.07.2000, there was shortage of funds of Rs. 53/- in his cash bag (4) On 12.06.2000, there was shortage of funds of Rs. 60/- All the four charges were proved and punishment was given for each of the charges as follows: (1) The yearly wage increment was cut off for three months for the first charge. (2) The yearly increment was cut off for three months for the second charge. (3) Fine of Rs. 25/- was imposed for the third charge. (4) Fine of Rs. 30/- was imposed for the fourth charge. 8. The learned counsel for the second respondent vehemently pointed out that all the four charges did not involve corrupt practice but only indicated shortage of funds and taking of trip in advance. These charges are not serious in nature. However, punishment had been awarded and it had become final. Thereafter, once again considering the old charges, the employee was dismissed from service which is against the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further contended that the second show cause notice is not sustainable under law since for the present proceedings, the original cause of action dated 20.04.2000, i.e. irregularities committed by the employee for non-issuing of tickets and shortage in collection for which penal action had already been taken, should not have been taken into account. Therefore, the Transport Corporation had suo-moto issued second show cause notice and re-opened the earlier findings and imposed a harsh punishment by way of dismissal from service which is against the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel further contended that there was a private bus competition for operation of the bus on the same route. Therefore, the Corporation bus was operated on the route keeping time schedule for passenger's convenience. Therefore, the conductor/employee was unable to issue ticket within two stages. The learned counsel further contended that neither the eyewitness nor the concerned person who travelled without ticket were examined. Therefore, the Corporation bus was operated on the route keeping time schedule for passenger's convenience. Therefore, the conductor/employee was unable to issue ticket within two stages. The learned counsel further contended that neither the eyewitness nor the concerned person who travelled without ticket were examined. Therefore, there is lacuna in the domestic enquiry proceedings. Actually, the driver of the bus is the competent person to give evidence to disclose the facts of the case, but he was not examined by the Enquiry Officer, even though, the employee had requested the enquiry officer to examine him. Therefore, the enquiry proceedings has been prejudicial to the interest of the second respondent herein. The learned counsel further submitted that while the employee was suspended temporarily, the contingency allowance had not been paid. It clearly proves that the employer's intention was to harass the poor employee. The learned counsel further submits the Labour Court observed that the Enquiry Officer attached to the Transport Corporation had not framed necessary issue i.e., misappropriation of funds of the Corporation. Without framing this issue, the dismissal of employee from service is not appropriate. Further, the Labour Court observed that the question of punishment imposed on the employee is harsh considering the nature of charges. Therefore, the Labour Court directed the writ petitioner herein to reinstate the second respondent in service with 75% back wages with continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Therefore, the Labour Court had decided the case in an appropriate manner. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to dismiss the above writ petition. 9. After the above discussion, this Court is of the view that: (i) The first charge memo dated 08.05.2000 is for irregularities committed by the second respondent herein on 20.04.2000. The second show cause notice dated 10.11.2000 was issued to the second respondent and once again the earlier charges made in the first charge memo was also included in it. These charges does not involve any corrupt practice and only denotes shortage of funds and non-issuing of tickets and for taking the trip 40 minutes ahead of schedule time. For this charge, the driver is also responsible but there was no discussion about the action taken against the driver. (ii) The second charge sheet had been issued against the second respondent herein runs against the principles of natural justice since on the earlier irregularities, punishment had already been awarded. For this charge, the driver is also responsible but there was no discussion about the action taken against the driver. (ii) The second charge sheet had been issued against the second respondent herein runs against the principles of natural justice since on the earlier irregularities, punishment had already been awarded. Once again, on the same charges made earlier, which is minor in nature and for which punishment had already been imposed, the removal of the second respondent from service, amounts to a second punishment which is not appropriate. 10. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned order passed in I.D. No. 97 of 2002 and this Court's view listed above, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the conclusions arrived at regarding reinstatement and other benefits given by the Labour Court. In the result, the above writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, the award passed in I.D. No. 97 of 2002, on the file of Labour Court, Vellore dated 16.03.2004 is confirmed. This Court further directs the writ petitioner to comply with the order passed in I.D. No. 97 of 2002, dated 16.03.2004, on the file of Labour Court, Vellore forthwith, subject to deduction of earlier payment made by the writ petitioner, as per this Court's earlier order. Accordingly ordered. There is no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.