JUDGMENT : Shri G. K. Agarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. None for the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 was not served and, therefore, with the permission of the Court a notice was published in Dainik Bhaskar on 25-4-2008. Thereafter also the respondent No. 1 has not chosen to contest this matter. 2. Petitioner-Corporation is aggrieved by the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court. The respondent No. 1 was subjected to disciplinary proceedings and consequent upon the said proceedings he was dismissed from service. He challenged the said dismissal before the Labour Court in Case No. 254/90/MPIR. The Labour Court decided the said matter on 7-5-1992. The departmental enquiry was declared as valid and proper. However, the Labour Court opined that in one misconduct misappropriated amount is only of ? 217-but in another misconduct it is little higher. It is opined by the Labour Court that the punishment is uncalled for and, therefore, the Corporation was directed to reinstate the petitioner without back wages. Against this order, the Corporation as well as respondent No. 1 filed appeals before the Industrial Court under section 65 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act. The Industrial Court by order dated 16-4-2002 rejected both the appeals. 3. Criticizing the said order, Shri Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the departmental enquiry is found to be legal and proper, there was no occasion for the Labour Court to interfere into quantum of punishment; more so, when the established charges are regarding misappropriation of amount and dishonesty. He relied on relied on AIR 2003 SC 1462 , Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah and others vs. Hoti lal and another and the order of this Court passed in Writ Petition No. 1211/2008 (Nathu Singh Kushwaha vs. The Depot Manager, M.P.R.T.C. and others) dated 5-5-2011. 4.1 have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. A bare perusal of the order of Labour Court shows that it opined that the departmental enquiry was legal and proper. Yet, the interference was made on the ground that a misconduct is only relating to ? 217- in one case and in another case it is little higher. In my opinion, the sympathy shown by the Labour Court is a misplaced and misconceived sympathy. Yet, the interference was made on the ground that a misconduct is only relating to ? 217- in one case and in another case it is little higher. In my opinion, the sympathy shown by the Labour Court is a misplaced and misconceived sympathy. Once allegations of corruption are established, amount does not matter and the only punishment which can be imposed is dismissal/removal from service. The employer has not committed any error in inflicting the said punishment on the respondent No. 1. The Apex Court has also taken this view in Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Etawah (supra). Apart from this, the respondent No. 1 was inflicted with punishment for similar set of misconduct on two earlier occasions. 6. Considering the aforesaid, in my opinion, the Industrial Court has erred in not interfering in the order of the Labour Court. The orders of Labour Court and Industrial Court are palpably illegal and run contrary to the settled legal position. 7. Consequently, the said orders, Annexures P-l and P-2 are set aside. Punishment order of the employer is affirmed. Petition is allowed. Petition allowed.