JUDGMENT : 1. The case of the appellant is that he was working as a conductor with the respondent-corporation. On 07.07.2000 while he was conducting bus bearing No.KA-25/F-1169 between cancer hospital to CBT Stage-1, Hubballi, the bus was subjected to inspection at Bhairidevarakoppa. It was found that there were 25+2+8 passengers travelling in the bus, six of them were travelling in a group without tickets. The appellant had neither collected the requisite fare of three from each of them nor had issued the tickets. The ticket-less passengers were penalised. A detailed report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereafter, articles of charges were framed. The same were replied to by the appellant. It was his plea that on the said day some passengers had boarded the bus and at that time there was heavy rain and there was traffic jam. He was under the impression that the said passengers were travelling from Bhairidevarakoppa. But the inspector thought that the said passengers had boarded the bus much earlier and demanded the tickets. The passengers informed the inspector that they had boarded the bus there itself. 2. Evidence was lead in by both sides. An enquiry report was submitted holding that the charges have been proved. A second show cause notice was issued. Thereafter, the appellant was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the same, he challenged the dismissal order before the Labour Court, wherein by order dated 22.03.2005, the petition was dismissed. Questioning the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.2646 of 2006. By the impugned order, domestic inquiry was held to be fair and proper and the writ petition was dismissed. Hence, this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant Shri Ashok I. Badiger, contends that the order passed in the enquiry is inappropriate. There is material to indicate that the Inquiring Officer committed an error, in not considering the evidence led in by the appellant. The same is disputed by the respondents. 4. On hearing learned counsels, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal. The learned Single Judge was of the view that once the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the charges against him have been proved, the same becomes a question of fact and interference is not called for and placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court on the said issue. 5. The learned Single Judge was of the view that once the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and proper and the charges against him have been proved, the same becomes a question of fact and interference is not called for and placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court on the said issue. 5. The learned Single Judge was also of the view that the dismissal of the appellant from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the nature of the conduct, since the appellant was involved in 52 past cases of misconduct. 6. Hence we are of the view that the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge is just and proper. We do not find any error committed by the learned Single Judge that calls for any interference. 7. The appellant was substantially heard before the Inquiring Officer. Evidence has also been led in. The Inquiring Officer has held that the charges are proved against him. There are 52 past cases of misconduct against him. Moreover, the finding recorded is that the enquiry was fair and proper. The Labour Court having considered the entire issue afresh has also come to the similar view as that of the Inquiring Officer. 8. For all the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any ground to interfere in the well considered order of the learned Single Judge. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. Pending I.A. stands rejected.