JUDGMENT 1. 1. By way of this intra-court appeal, the petitioner-appellant seeks to question the order dated 05.09.2013 passed in CWP No.8478/2013 whereby, the learned Single Judge of this Court has dismissed in limine the writ petition against the award dated 21.12.2012, as made in Industrial Dispute Case No.11/2010 whereby, the Labour Court, Bhilwara found justified the order dated 30.07.2002 passed by the respondent-employer imposing the penalty of removal from service upon the appellant after domestic inquiry. 2. In brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the appellant, while serving as conductor with the respondent - Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (the Corporation), was assigned the duties on a vehicle enroute Bhilwara to Sardarshahar on 26.07.2001. Upon checking, the vehicle incharge of the appellant was found carrying 10 passengers without tickets, and the way bill was also not duly filled in. A regular inquiry was conducted into the charges of misconduct levlled against the appellant wherein, his past record was also made a part of the charge-sheet. After due inquiry, wherein the appellant participated and adduced evidence, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 25.08.2001 finding all the charges proved. The Disciplinary Authority afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant and, thereafter, in its detailed order dated 30.07.2002, held the appellant guilty of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority also referred to 12 past cases of misconduct registered against the appellant of which, 3 were pending decision but in other 9 cases, he was penalised from time to time. The Disciplinary Authority ultimately proceeded to award the punishment of removal from service upon the appellant. Aggrieved, the appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court. In its order dated 15.06.2012, the Labour Court found the domestic inquiry conducted by the Corporation fair and proper. Then, after due consideration of the record of the inquiry proceedings as also the evidence led by the parties, the Labour Court, in its impugned award dated 21.12.2012, found baseless the suggestions made by the appellant in defence. The Labour Court, therefore, answered the reference in favour of the Corporation while holding that termination of services of the appellant by the respondent-Corporation for the proved misconduct was just and proper. 3. The Labour Court, therefore, answered the reference in favour of the Corporation while holding that termination of services of the appellant by the respondent-Corporation for the proved misconduct was just and proper. 3. Seeking to question the award so made by the Labour Court, the petitioner-appellant essentially reiterated the stand as taken in defence in the inquiry proceedings. It was emphasised that the passengers in question had boarded the bus just before the inspecting team intercepted and the appellant did not get proper time to issue the tickets. It was also contended that the appellant had not realised the fare from the passengers and, thus, in the absence of a charge of corruption or embezzlement, the penalty of removal from service was apparently disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct alleged. It was further contended that the Disciplinary Authority took into consideration the past record of the appellant, which was not permissible in law. 4. The learned Single Judge found all the contentions made on behalf of the petitioner devoid of substance. The learned Single Judge observed that the finding arrived at by the Labour Court holding the appellant guilty was essentially a finding of fact which was neither capricious nor perverse so as to warrant interference in the writ jurisdiction. The learned Single Judge further referred to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S.Hullikatti, (2001) 2 SCC 574 : AIR 2001 SC 930 and Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330 and observed that mere non-realisation of fare was of no effect, and carrying passengers without ticket was that of a gross misconduct. As regards the past record too, the learned Single Judge noticed that the same was made the part of the charge-sheet and was not controverted by the appellant by producing any evidence to the contrary. The learned Single Judge referred to the past record of the appellant and observed that even in the past, he was found carrying the passengers without tickets but he was let-off with minor punishments but he did not improve and indulged again in the act of misconduct and hence, no fault could be seen in the quantum of punishment. 5. The learned Single Judge referred to the past record of the appellant and observed that even in the past, he was found carrying the passengers without tickets but he was let-off with minor punishments but he did not improve and indulged again in the act of misconduct and hence, no fault could be seen in the quantum of punishment. 5. Seeking to question the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued that it was clearly established in the domestic inquiry that the passengers in question had boarded the bus from the road-side just before the inspecting team intercepted, and obviously, the appellant did not get sufficient time to issue the necessary tickets. The learned counsel has also strenuously argued that when the appellant did not collect money from the passengers, there was no question of his having indulged in embezzlement and hence, he could not have been declared dishonest. It is also submitted that there had not been any material contradiction in the defence version of the appellant and the version of his witness i.e., driver of the bus in question but, unnecessarily, some minor variation has been treated as that of contradiction. The learned counsel submitted that in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, the penalty of removal is grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. 6. Having gone through the record, we are satisfied that the Inquiry Officer had duly conducted the inquiry in accordance with law before returning the findings against the appellant. The Disciplinary Authority, in its detailed order dated 30.07.2002, had examined every relevant aspect of the matter before rejecting the defence version of the appellant. The Labour Court, even though found the domestic inquiry being valid and not suffering from any infirmity, yet examined the record over again and found the charges duly substantiated. The learned Single Judge has, yet again, examined the material on record with reference to the law applicable, before rejecting the writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant. The learned Single Judge has dealt with every relevant aspect of the matter in the following:- "9. Indisputably, the Corporation vehicle wherein the petitioner was discharging duties as Conductor was intercepted and checked by the checking party of the Corporation, which found 10 passengers out of total 12 passengers traveling in the bus without tickets. The learned Single Judge has dealt with every relevant aspect of the matter in the following:- "9. Indisputably, the Corporation vehicle wherein the petitioner was discharging duties as Conductor was intercepted and checked by the checking party of the Corporation, which found 10 passengers out of total 12 passengers traveling in the bus without tickets. Accordingly, the remark was entered in the way bill and bus checking was prepared. It has come on record that the place where the checking was made is specifically mentioned in the Way Bill and Bus Checking Report and therefore, the stand of the petitioner that the passengers found without tickets were the passengers traveling in a jeep illegally and had boarded the bus from Ratangarh, has rightly been not accepted by the Labour Court. It is true that the passengers traveling in the bus were not examined before the inquiry officer or the Labour Court but on that account the finding arrived at by the Labour Court regarding the guilt of the petitioner shall not stand vitiated. It is well settled that in domestic enquiry, the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act do not apply. The sufficiency of evidence in proof of finding arrived at by the Labour Court is beyond scrutiny. In the considered opinion of this court, on the basis of the material on record, the finding arrived at by the Labour Court holding the petitioner guilty of the charge of misconduct leveled against him remains a finding of fact, which cannot be said to be capricious or perverse so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. Coming to the quantum of punishment, it is true that it is not the case of the Corporation that the petitioner had not realised the fare from the passengers found traveling without tickets. But the fact remains that the petitioner failed to discharge the duties assigned to a conductor in issuing the tickets to the passengers when they boarded the bus and allowed them to travel without tickets. It is the principal duty of the Conductor to issue tickets and realise the fares, and then deposit the same with the Corporation. Thus, failure to discharge such duty assigned amounts to gross misconduct. It is the principal duty of the Conductor to issue tickets and realise the fares, and then deposit the same with the Corporation. Thus, failure to discharge such duty assigned amounts to gross misconduct. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. B.S. Hullikatti, (2001) 2 SCC 574 : AIR 2001 SC 930 , held that in such cases where the bus conductors carry passengers without tickets or issue tickets at a less rate then the proper rate, the said acts would inter alia amount to either being a case of dishonesty or of gross negligence and such conductors were not fit to retain in service because such an action or inaction on their part results in financial loss to the Road Transport Corporation. The aforesaid view taken has been further reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Regional Manager, RSRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330 . Thus, nothing turns on the question that petitioner had not realised the fare from the passengers traveling in Bus without tickets. 11. It is pertinent to note that the past record of the petitioner was part of the charge sheet and the same was not controverted by the petitioner by producing any evidence contrary. Suffice it to say that the petitioner had an opportunity to contest the matter regarding consideration of the past record and therefore, nothing turns on the question that while considering the question of quantum of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority and the Labour Court have relied upon the past record of the petitioner as well. As a matter of fact, the past record indicates that the petitioner was earlier also found taking the passengers without tickets, however, taking a lenient view minor punishments were imposed but the petitioner did not improve his conduct over the years and indulged in act of misdemeanor time and again. In this view of the matter, the consideration of past record of the petitioner while examining the question of quantum of punishment also cannot be faulted with. 12. In view of the discussion above, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India." 7. 12. In view of the discussion above, the impugned award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any infirmity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to warrant interference by this court in exercise its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India." 7. The contentions that the petitioner did not collect money or that he did not get sufficient time to issue the tickets have all been duly considered by the Disciplinary Authority, Labour Court and then by the learned Single Judge before rejecting the same and recording the concurrent findings against the appellant. We find nothing of infirmity in the findings so recorded as to consider interference in intra-court appeal. Consideration of the past record of the petitioner makes it clear that he had been penalised several times on the allegations of carrying passengers without tickets. The earlier misconducts even related to his misdemeanour after consuming liquor and also of misbehaving with the ladies. 8. In an overall comprehension of the matter, when in the present case, it was found that out of 13 passengers in the bus, 10 were without tickets, the penalty of removal could have been the only adequate punishment. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly declined to entertain the baseless writ petition. 9. The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******