ORDER : Anand Byrareddy, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner was a bus conductor employed by the respondent-Corporation. The bus on which the petitioner was on duty, is said to have been intercepted by a checking squad and it was found that there were 15 passengers on the bus and the petitioner had collected fare from 8 of them but had not issued tickets to them. The petitioner was said to have been promptly issued with a charge memo and statements of the passengers is said to have been recorded. 3. Pursuant to the above, the management is said to have conducted a departmental enquiry and the charges having been found proved, the Disciplinary Authority had dismissed the petitioner from service. The added circumstance was that there was a history of 45 such instances in which the petitioner was found involved over a period of time. The petitioner had then filed a petition under Section 10 (4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, before the Additional Labour Court, Hubli, challenging the order of dismissal from service. The Tribunal found that the departmental enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper and that the punishment imposed was in order. It is that which is under challenge in the present petition. 4. Though the learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks to vehemently canvass several grounds and seeks to highlight infirmities in the findings of fact by the Tribunal, with respect to the material available on record and the findings being inconsistent thereto, the same are not in the nature material infirmities that go the root of the matter. In sum, the charges against the petitioner have been substantially proved not only on a preponderance of probabilities but even beyond reasonable doubt. This can be said notwithstanding the so-called infirmities sought to be highlighted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The Apex Court, as rightly held by the Tribunal, has repeatedly stated that a bus conductor who is found to have pilfered monies of his employer ought to be visited with the extreme punishment of dismissal and deserves no mercy. It is not the quantum of money involved but the loss of confidence in the employee and the want of integrity in him, that weighs uppermost in the mind of the employer in justifying such extreme punishment. It is not the quantum of money involved but the loss of confidence in the employee and the want of integrity in him, that weighs uppermost in the mind of the employer in justifying such extreme punishment. There is no merit in this petition and the same stands dismissed.