ORDER : Challa Kodanda Ram, J. 1. The Depot Manager, Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (in short "the Corporation") Warangal-1, challenges the validity of the Award dated 23.10.2006 in I.D. No. 48 of 2004 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Warangal (in short "the Tribunal") on various grounds in this Writ Petition. It is the case of the petitioner-Corporation that in a domestic enquiry the charges leveled against the 2nd respondent-workman were stood proved. The disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority having considered the gravity of the charges leveled against the respondent No. 2 as proved that of the respondent No. 2 being driver of the Domestic Goods Transport Vehicle bearing No. AP 9Z 327 transported eight passengers by collecting money, imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as 'not on duty' for all purposes. The Tribunal ought not to have interfered with the punishment as having held that the charges leveled against the 2nd respondent having been proved. Further the Labour Court without assigning any reasons for modifying the punishment of stoppage of two incremental stages for a period of two years imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, has modified the same as deferment of annual grade increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect and to treat the period of suspension as on duty for all purposes. Hence, the present writ petition. 2. Learned counsel submits that there is no reasoning to support the modification of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Learned counsel for the respondent workman vehemently opposing the writ petition submits that the Tribunal vested with the discretion under section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act (in short "the Act") and such Award does not call for any interference at this point of time. 3. Having considered the respective submissions the facts are not in dispute. In domestic enquiry the Inquiry Officer found that on 04.02.2000 the respondent No. 2 had transported eight passengers in the DGT vehicle bearing No. AP 9Z 327 and also collected fare from them. The explanation submitted by the 2nd respondent that it was only on account of the obstruction created by certain people and forcing him to carry eight passengers was not believed. The explanation submitted by the 2nd respondent that it was only on account of the obstruction created by certain people and forcing him to carry eight passengers was not believed. As a matter of fact, some of the persons stated that they had paid Rs. 4.50 ps., per head for their journey from Raghunathapally to Jangaon. In other words, the charges stand proved in all respects. Considering the same, the disciplinary authority, who is the competent to impose penalties, had imposed a punishment of reduction of pay by two incremental stages for a period of two years with cumulative effect besides treating the suspension period as 'not on duty' for all purposes against the 2nd respondent. In this context the scope of interference of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority either by the Tribunal or by this Court is limited. As a matter of fact, the interference can be only when the Tribunal finds that the punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the misconduct as proved. In this context, it may be noticed that the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967, for short 'CCA. Regulations', in particular the Regulation 28(x) of the 'CCA. Regulations, the petitioner was charged with misconduct falling within the context of Regulation 28(x) of the CCA. Regulations. "In Reg. No. 28(x) theft, fraud, dishonesty or misappropriation in connection with the business or the property of the Corporation" are stated. 4. Even the Tribunal did not give any reasons as to why the punishment requires to be interfered with, muchless coming to the conclusion that the punishment imposed is totally disproportionate to the misconduct charged. As a matter of fact, in terms of the CCA. Regulations one of the penalties for the misconduct of the nature is removal from service. In those circumstances, the disciplinary authority having exercised its discretion, had imposed the lesser punishment. Without there being any justifiable reason, the Tribunal could not have interfered with the quantum of punishment as awarded by the disciplinary authority. A reference may be made to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. v. K.B. Narawade (2005) 3 SCC 134 cited by the learned counsel for the Corporation. 5. In those circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside restoring the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. 5. In those circumstances, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside restoring the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.