ORDER Ravi Malimath, J.—The respondent was appointed as Driver-cum-Attender by order dated 31.7.2001 by the petitioner. His service was confirmed by the order dated 20.11.2002. A show cause notice was issued to him by the order dated 9.2.2004 making certain charges. He submitted his reply on 14.2.2004. Thereafter a charge sheet-cum-notice dated 4.3.2004 was issued. An enquiry was initiated. The respondent was heard. He tendered his evidence. The enquiry committee proposed a punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter, he was terminated from service by order dated 27.3.2004. In the proceedings under section 10(4A) of Industrial Disputes Act before the Labour Court, the Labour Court by the impugned order allowed the petition, set aside the order of dismissal passed by the petitioner and directed to reinstate the respondent to his original post with 75% of back-wages with continuity of service and without consequential benefits. Questioning the same, the employer has filed this present petition. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order passed by the Labour Court is perverse and liable to be interfered with and that the Labour Court had assigned its own reasons for reversing the order. The findings recorded are that the enquiry was not just and fair. Evidence was let in. Thereafter, the witnesses were examined in support of their respective case. Thereafter, the matter was considered on merits. It is contended that the order passed by the Labour Court is perverse and liable to be interfered with and that the Labour Court could not have granted reinstatement with 75% back-wages. 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. He submits that there is no error committed by the Labour Court that calls for any interference. Considering the material on record and the evidence let in, he submits that 25% back-wages has been denied to him. He should be entitled for 100%. He further pleads that the petition be dismissed. 3. Heard the learned counsels and examined the records. 4. The charges in the show cause notice dated 9.2.2004 are as follows: 1. You are not punctual in your work. 2. You have not cleaned/maintained the bus properly. 3. He should be entitled for 100%. He further pleads that the petition be dismissed. 3. Heard the learned counsels and examined the records. 4. The charges in the show cause notice dated 9.2.2004 are as follows: 1. You are not punctual in your work. 2. You have not cleaned/maintained the bus properly. 3. You have left behind the PG faculty at Kaiwara and started the bus to Bangalore without obtaining any instructions from the PG faculty which is a lapse for which a memo dated 21.10.2003 cited at (2) above was issued to you. 4. There are complaints about misuse of diesel. 5. You have obtained a credit voucher No. 47194 on 14.1.2004 for filling 100 ltrs. diesel to Bus No. KA 04 A 3423 for taking the Doctors to Kaiwara on 15.1.2004. 6. You have taken the vehicle to M/s. Lakshmi Service Station and produced the voucher for filling-up of 100 ltrs. diesel at 3.30 p.m. on 14.1.2004. But you have reportedly asked the service boy to stop the meter at 50 Ltrs. It is not clear as to how and why 50 ltrs. of diesel filled against the indent of 100 ltrs. It is a deliberate act, which amounts to cheating the Institution for pecuniary gain. 7. By this act your integrity is doubtful. 5. The first party-workman denied the allegations. Domestic enquiry was held. The evidence of the Administrative Officer of the employer was to the effect that the workman was issued with a show cause notice for committing irregularities and that thereafter he tendered an unconditional apology that he would be careful in future. Even though the workman was not up to the mark, he committed various irregularities as noted in the show cause notice issued on 9.2.2004. The second witness, proprietor of Shakthi Auto Crafts, who checked the vehicle for the second party against the complaint in his report dated 27.2.2004 stated that the vehicle had no starting problem, battery and all electrical accessories are intact and in good working condition. The evidence of this witness clearly shows that the claim put up by the workman was false. The third witness is the principal of the establishment. He has narrated the manner in which the conduct of the workman was. The fourth witness is the Professor of Community Medicine, Co-ordinator, Facilitator of Kaiwara Centre of the second party establishment. The evidence of this witness clearly shows that the claim put up by the workman was false. The third witness is the principal of the establishment. He has narrated the manner in which the conduct of the workman was. The fourth witness is the Professor of Community Medicine, Co-ordinator, Facilitator of Kaiwara Centre of the second party establishment. He has stated about the memo issued to the workman regarding leaving the PG faculty at Kaiwara and when the vehicle had gone to Kaiwara, he left behind one of them wilfully i.e., his conduct was arrogant, wilfully disobedient, insubordination, disorderly behaviour and indiscipline. However, in the reply he has stated that he did not know that he left behind one of the PG student Satish. The fifth witness is the PG student. He admits that there were about 30 inmates in the bus. On that day, he travelled on a motor cycle for 15 kms from Kaiwara to catch the bus driven by the first party. The evidence of this witness would clearly show that he was necessarily left behind. The next witness is the cleaner of the bus, who is the witness for the filling of diesel at Lakshmi Service Station. He has given an affidavit that he has filled the diesel of 50 ltrs only and not 100 ltrs as per the voucher. Therefore, the voucher was wrongly misused by the workman inasmuch as 50 ltrs of diesel was filled and not 100 ltrs as appearing in the voucher. The workman has given an affidavit evidence denying ail the allegations. 6. On considering the same, the Labour Court recorded its own reasoning while discarding the findings of the enquiry committee. So far as the first charge is concerned, that he was not punctual in his work, the material would show that as far he attending to his work on 12th and 14th of July, 2003 is concerned, he was marked absent. The attendance register-Ex. M. 16 has been marked and I have examined the same and it reflects the same. 7. The second charge is that he has not cleaned and maintained the bus properly. As such, cleaning of the bus is the job of the cleaner and not of the driver is what is stated by the workman. 8. The attendance register-Ex. M. 16 has been marked and I have examined the same and it reflects the same. 7. The second charge is that he has not cleaned and maintained the bus properly. As such, cleaning of the bus is the job of the cleaner and not of the driver is what is stated by the workman. 8. The third charge is that he has left behind the PG faculty at Kaiwara and started the bus to Bangalore without obtaining any instructions. The evidence on material would show the same. However, the reply of the workman is that he left Kaiwara at 2.15 p.m. as against the scheduled time, which is at 2.30 p.m. The bus departed leaving behind the Doctor at 2.15 p.m. Admittedly, Dr. Satish was not taken in the Bus. In his evidence he has stated that in order to catch the bus he travelled a distance of 15 kms from Kaiwara by taking assistance of a motor cyclist. As far as the evidence, particularly Doctor is concerned, the material on record would show the same. He has stated in his evidence that he was left behind, but staff and students were in the bus. According to him, during his cross-examination, he has stated that the time of leaving Kaiwara was informed to him over phone by Satish. He stated except Satish, all other staff and doctors returned in the same bus. Evidence of the Doctor clearly shows that he was not taken into the bus when it departed at 2.15 p.m. as against the schedule time which was at 2.30 p.m. Therefore, the findings as well as the reasoning of the Labour Court is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 9. The fourth charge is with regard to misuse of diesel. There is no sufficient material placed by the management to show as to what extent the misuse has taken place. Hence, the finding is sustained. 10. The fifth and sixth charge is with regard to the credit voucher for 100 ltrs. was taken on 14.1.2004 but admittedly only 50 ltrs. of diesel were taken. The charge was denied. But in the evidence of the cleaner, it is shown that the vehicle was filled only to the extent of 50 Ltrs. and not 100 Ltrs. The findings therefore recorded by the Tribunal that the charge has not been proved is incorrect. was taken on 14.1.2004 but admittedly only 50 ltrs. of diesel were taken. The charge was denied. But in the evidence of the cleaner, it is shown that the vehicle was filled only to the extent of 50 Ltrs. and not 100 Ltrs. The findings therefore recorded by the Tribunal that the charge has not been proved is incorrect. After the voucher was obtained for filling 100 Ltrs. only 50 Ltrs. was filled. The plea of the workman, is contrary to facts and evidence. The cleaner has clearly stated that only 50 Ltrs. were filled. Hence, the charge stands proved. The finding of the Labour Court on this charge is perverse. It is opposed to facts. 11. The seventh charge is that the integrity is doubtful is relatable to charges 4, 5 and 6 which are pertaining to misuse of diesel. The reasoning of the Labour Court with regard to seventh charge is necessarily based on its finding that charges 4, 5 and 6 have not been proved. Therefore, the seventh charge could not be established. However, in view of the aforesaid reasoning, I am of the considered view that the finding of the Labour Court with regard to charges 4, 5 and 6 is concerned being misuse of diesel to the extent of 50 Ltrs. and the same would reflect the integrity of the workman. In the circumstances, so far as the seventh charge is concerned, it being the result of the findings recorded on charges 4, 5 and 6, charge No. 7 would be held proved against the workman. 12. Further, the Labour Court considered Ex. M-17, which is the apology letter given by the workman In the letter it has been stated that his salary for the month of July, 2003 was stopped and he would not repeat the mistake and by condoning the mistake his salary may be released. The conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court is that the apology is not relatable to any one of the charges against him and hence cannot be accepted. Having submitted an apology letter in terms of Ex. M-17, the same should have been considered in view of the charges levelled against him. The findings of the Labour Court on this issue cannot be accepted. Further it has to be seen that the nature of evidence let in has been totally misread by the Labour Court. Having submitted an apology letter in terms of Ex. M-17, the same should have been considered in view of the charges levelled against him. The findings of the Labour Court on this issue cannot be accepted. Further it has to be seen that the nature of evidence let in has been totally misread by the Labour Court. It has assigned its own reasons based on conjunctures. It was also of the view that there was a possibility that unknowingly or by sheer inadvertence, the first party might have left Kaiwara, by holding so at para 29 of its order. 29... It is also possible that unknowingly or by sheer inadvertence, first party might have left Kaiwara on that day; it is also possible that he had replied rudely when questioned by the Coordinator, B.C. Satish. The findings of the Labour Court with regard to this issue needs to be interfered with. 13. The Labour Court further while imposing a penalty was of the view that "being out of service till now, must have taught him a lesson" and passed an order reinstating the respondent with 75% of back-wages with continuity of service and without consequential benefits. The order passed by the Labour Court reinstating with 75% back-wages on this reasoning cannot be sustained. 14. In my considered view as far as the punishment is concerned, it cannot be said to be either excessive or disproportionate what is of greater relevance is, he was firstly appointed in July, 2001 and was confirmed in November, 2002. The material on record would show that the vehicle in question met with a road accident on 22.1.2005. However, that is not part of the allegations against him. Being part and parcel of daily activities as a Driver, the management has also taken that into consideration. In the result, for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 30.11.2006 passed in I.D. No. 52/2004 by the Labour. Court is set aside. The order of dismissal dated 27.3.2004 is confirmed. Rule made absolute.