JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for private respondent-opposite party No. 2. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated 3.6.2015 whereby the State Public Services Tribunal while allowing the Claim Petition No. 557 of 2003 (Surendra Kumar Sharma v. Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Lucknow and others) quashed the order of punishment dated 11.7.2002, appellate order dated 26.10.2002 and order of review dated 31.10.2003 and directed the opposite parties to reinstate the private respondent in service and provide all benefits of service to him. 3. In short the facts of the case are that the private respondent-Surendra Kumar Sharma was appointed as Conductor on 11.1.1994 on compassionate ground under the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974. On 31.3.2000, the private respondent while discharging his duties as Conductor in Bus No. UP 32 T 9520, an inspection was conducted at Bindura and it was found that 22 passengers were travelling without ticket, for which an endorsement was made on the waybill and composite ticket of difference of fare amount i.e. Rs. 176 was prepared. Sri H.M.sidduqui, who conducted the inspection reported the matter to the Regional Manager. 4. On receipt of the said report/complaint, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge-sheet dated 25.11.2000 was served upon the delinquent employee, who was asked to submit reply within 15 days. The private respondent had submitted his reply denying the allegations levelled against him. 5. The Inquiry Officer conducted the regular inquiry and after conclusion of the inquiry, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.1.2002. The private respondent submitted his reply to the show-cause notice dated 20.2.2002 to the disciplinary authority. The Inquiry officer after completing the inquiry, submitted its report to the Appointing Authority, who vide its order dated 11.7.2002, passed the order of removal after following due procedure. Aggrieved by the order of removal dated 11.7.2002, the private respondent preferred an appeal before the the Zonal Manager, UPSRTC, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2002. Thereafter, the private respondent preferred a revision petitioner against the order dated 26.10.2002 but the same also met with the same fate as it was rejected vide order dated 31.10.2003. Aggrieved by the order of removal dated 11.7.2002, the private respondent preferred an appeal before the the Zonal Manager, UPSRTC, which was also dismissed vide order dated 26.10.2002. Thereafter, the private respondent preferred a revision petitioner against the order dated 26.10.2002 but the same also met with the same fate as it was rejected vide order dated 31.10.2003. Aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the private respondent preferred a claim petition before the Tribunal which was allowed vide impugned order dated 3.6.2015. 6. Being not satisfied with the judgment of the Tribunal, the Corporation has filed the instant writ petition on the ground that there is no procedural error in passing the order of removal against the employee and it is wrong to say that there are defects in the disciplinary proceedings. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on 24.1.2001 and 3.2.2001, the Inquiry Officer issued letters to the private respondent mentioning therein the date, place and time to appear before him for participating in the disciplinary proceedings, therefore, it has wrongly been stated by the private respondent that he has not received notice with regard to time, place and date of inquiry. It has also been contended that the observations drawn by the Tribunal are contrary to the inquiry report and the records and the impugned order has been passed on a wrong premise. 7. To strengthen his submissions, learned Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court rendered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chandra Sharma; 2010 Law Suit (SC)334 and a decision of this Court rendered in Bal Mukund Tripathi v. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation; 2015(10) ADJ 675 and contended that in corruption cases, degree of corruption is immaterial and no lenient attitude is required to be shown. 8. Learned Counsel for the respondent while defending the order of the Tribunal argued that the Tribunal has quashed the order of removal as serious defects were found in the inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal has also found that no notice or letter dated 24.1.2001 or 3.2.2001 was ever issued to the charged employee for participating in the inquiry. It has also been alleged that the respondent was never allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law and ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. 9. It has also been alleged that the respondent was never allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the inquiry was conducted in accordance with law and ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. 9. The trivial question which is to be decided is as to whether the petitioner was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself or not during the disciplinary proceedings and whether he was informed about the timing and place of inquiry. To ascertain this fact, we have summoned the original record pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings drawn against the charged employee. A perusal of the record shows that notice dated 24.1.2001 and 3.2.2001 was issued to the charged employee through the Station Superintendent, Raebareli. The charged employee has cross-examined the witnesses on 20.2.2001. This fact find place in the bottom of page 2 of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Thus, it is incorrect to say that reasonable opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner. As a matter of fact, ample opportunity has been afforded to the charged employee at every stage i.e. prior to submission of the inquiry report and before passing the order of removal. 10. It is pertinent to mention that the post of Conductor is a post of trust and the person guilty of breach of trust is to be dealt with iron hand. The loss of confidence occupies the primary factor and not the amount of money and sympathy and generosity cannot be a factor, which is permissible in law in such matters. In Regional Manager UPSRTC, Etawah and others v. Hoti Lal and another; AIR 2003 SCC 1462(1), the employee was a conductor on duty in Bus No. UGG-108. While checking was done by the Assistant Regional Manager, it was found that 16 persons were without ticket. Even after realizing fare from the passengers, no ticket had been issued upto the time of Checking. These according to the authorities amounted to dereliction of duty, violation of Employee’s Conduct Code and misappropriate of employer’s money. After being subjected to the disciplinary proceedings, the employee was terminated. The order of termination was assailed in writ petition No. 4535/SS/1991, which was dismissed. These according to the authorities amounted to dereliction of duty, violation of Employee’s Conduct Code and misappropriate of employer’s money. After being subjected to the disciplinary proceedings, the employee was terminated. The order of termination was assailed in writ petition No. 4535/SS/1991, which was dismissed. The matter was carried in Special Appeal before the Division Bench by the employee and the Division Bench set aside the order of termination leaving it open to the employer to award any punishment but not of removal or termination or compulsory retirement. The correctness of the said judgment passed by the Division Bench was questioned by the Corporation before the Apex Court and the only point raised by the Corporation was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent No. 1-Hoti Lal. 11. The Apex Court while allowing the appeal and maintaining the order of removal held that the Court shall not intervene unless the punishment is wholly disproportionate. Further the Court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment does not commensurate with the proved charges. 12. In the case of V. Ramana v. A.P. SRTC and others, (2005) 7 SCC 338 , the Apex Court has held that a Conductor holds a post of trust. A person guilty of breach of trust should be imposed punishment of removal from service. The appellant’s conduct in collecting fare at the designated place and not collecting fare from persons, who had already travelled were in violation of various regulations contained in the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Emplouyees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 13. Again, in the case of APSRT v. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad, (2007) 1 SCC 222 , it has been held by the Apex Court that once an employee has lost the confidence of the employer, it would not be safe and in the interest of the Corporation to continue the employee in the service. 14. Recently, in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others v. Gopal Shukla and others [decided on 1.9.2015] the first respondent, namely, Gopal Shukla, in identical situation like the petitioner, was visited with the punishment of dismissal. On an industrial dispute being raised, the Award was given in favour by the Labour Court and the employer was directed to reinstate the workman. On an industrial dispute being raised, the Award was given in favour by the Labour Court and the employer was directed to reinstate the workman. The Corporation assailed the said award in a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court concurred with the award relating to reinstatement but as far as the grant of back wages is concerned, it reduced the same to 25 percent. The correctness of aforesaid orders was questioned by the Corporation before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court observed that in corruption cases, degree of corruption is immaterial and no lenient attitude is required to be shown. The Apex Court upheld the order of disciplinary authority who had dismissed the Bus Conductor for allowing 25 passengers to travel in the bus without ticket, and reversed the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and High Court, who had taken a lenient view, and had reinstated him to service. The Apex Court held that both the Labour Court and the High Court have fallen in error by imposing a lesser punishment on the workman whereas the only punishment, on establishment of the charges which have been accepted by the labour Court, should have been dismissal and not a lesser one. It would useful to reproduce the relevant observations : “The reasoning, if we allow ourselves to say, constrains us to ruminate whether the Labour Court has been swayed away by the concept “forgiveness is the economy of the heart” and dominantly affected by the conception “mercy among the virtues is like the moon among the stars”, totally remaining oblivious to the basic principle that when the workman shatters the “institutional trust” and his act has the potentiality to corrode the faith and belief of the employer, does he deserve any leniency. It is not the quantum per se but the breach of trust with reference to duty and obligation of the employee that must be the edifice of consideration for imposition of punishment.” 15. One of the assertions of the charged employee is that Inspection team has not recorded statement of any passenger and as such it is not safe to fully rely upon the complaint of the Passenger Superintendent- Sri H.M.Siddiqui. One of the assertions of the charged employee is that Inspection team has not recorded statement of any passenger and as such it is not safe to fully rely upon the complaint of the Passenger Superintendent- Sri H.M.Siddiqui. In our view, in the case of charge of travelling of passengers without tickets or charging less fare for long distance, factum that passengers were not made witnesses or their statements were not recorded, has not been found to be relevant or a crucial aspect for valid inquiry. Similarly, when conductor holding fiduciary relation is found allowing travelling by passengers without tickets, it has been held to be a serious misconduct justifying maximum penalty of dismissal. Mere fact that subsequently fare was realized by checking squad is not sufficient to condone misconduct committed by the person concerned. 16. We do not propose to multiply authorities on this aspect and suffice it to mention that dishonesty, lack of integrity on the part of an official of the Corporation, going to the extent of causing loss to Corporation, of which the official is holding position in trust, is a very serious matter. It is the aptitude of a person which leans towards dishonesty and corruption or bad conduct, that needs punished. The circumstances or quantum of loss or amount of misappropriation or other things cannot be considered as a justification for such misconduct on the part of official concerned, so as to justify a lenient view on the issue of punishment. 17. In view of the aforesaid detailed discussions, the impugned judgment dated 3.6.2015 passed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No. 557 of 2003 is not sustainable and is hereby quashed. The writ petition stands allowed accordingly.