JUDGMENT M.Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner in this writ petition has called in question the award of the Labour Court dated 29.04.2011 in Reference No.10/2007, whereby, the Labour Court has rejected the reference. 2. Brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are: The petitioner joined the services of respondent No.1 M/s. Karnataka Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd., (hereinafter referred to as 'Corporation' for short) as a daily wage employee on 01.07.1986. It is claimed that in the year 1993, his services were regularized in the cadre of Junior Assistant/Sales Assistant. 3. At the relevant point of time, when the petitioner was working as Sales Assistant at Ramachandrapura Retail Point, Bangalore City. Alleging misappropriation of funds, a charge sheet came to be issued to the petitioner on 25.07.2002. On receipt of the charge sheet and the statement of imputations, petitioner got submitted his reply on 20.8.2002 admitting his guilt. 4. Noticing the admission of guilt in reply to the charge sheet, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of dismissal on the petitioner, on the ground that no enquiry was contemplated in the light of the unequivocal admission on the part of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal by his order dated 22.12.2004 modifying the order of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement. 6. The petitioner took up the matter in Conciliation before the Competent Authority and on failure of conciliation, the dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court as to whether the Appellate Authority was right in only modifying the penalty of dismissal from services to compulsory retirement. The Labour Court by its order dated 29.04.2011 rejected the reference owing to admission of guilt by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. Heard Sri R.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.B.Nandish Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Labour Court has grossly erred in not considering the fact that there is gross disparity between charge sheet and statement of imputations. 7. Heard Sri R.Krishna Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.B.Nandish Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.1. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the Labour Court has grossly erred in not considering the fact that there is gross disparity between charge sheet and statement of imputations. In the charge sheet, it is alleged that the petitioner has misappropriated Rs.52,256/- and Rs.22,355/-, whereas, the statement of imputations would clearly indicate that remaining amount of Rs.22,355/- is deposited by the petitioner in a staggered manner on different dates and hence, the very imputations is erroneous and the observation of the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner has misappropriated both the amounts namely Rs.52,256/- and Rs.22,355/- is contrary to the statement of imputations and the same is vitiated. 9. He would further contend that in plethora of cases, the Corporation has awarded lesser penalty than that of what is awarded against the petitioner in identical cases of misappropriation/temporary misappropriation of funds by its employees which he has pleaded in paragraph No.15 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that the admission given by the petitioner was on account of ignorance of the consequence of such admission. He would submit that much emphasis should not be laid upon the same. More so, in the light of disparity in the statement of imputations, the objections filed before the Labour Court and the evidence of management witness before the Labour Court. 10. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Corporation would submit that the statement of imputations which is appended to the charge sheet is only an explanation to the charge sheet and there is no disparity in the same and the fact remains that the petitioner made an unequivocal admission while submitting his defence statement to the charge sheet and the statement of imputations. 11. Insofar as, contention with regard to the discrimination in imposition of penalty upon other employees in identical cases of misappropriation, he would submit that the Appellate Authority has considered all these factors and has modified the penalty from that of dismissal to compulsory retirement, being lenient towards the petitioner. Hence, he submits that there is no scope for interference with the award passed by the Labour Court. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record. Hence, he submits that there is no scope for interference with the award passed by the Labour Court. 12. I have considered the submissions made by the respective learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the material on record. 13. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was working as Junior Assistant in the Corporation and while working at the office of District Commissioner (North), Bengaluru, a charge sheet along with statement of imputations were issued against the petitioner on 26.07.2002 by framing the following charge and imputations: "That Sri.H.M.Narayana, Junior Assistant, Office of the District Manager (North) while working as Sales Assistant at Ramachandrapura retail point, during March 2001 and April 2001, he has not remitted the sale proceeds of Rs.52,256-00 and Rs.22,355-00 respectively to the Bank and utilized the same for his personal gain and thereby committed misconduct as per the KCS (Conduct) Rules 1966." Statement of imputations on the charges read as follows: "While working as the Sales Assistant of Ramachandrapura Retail Point, Sri. H.M.Narayana has not remitted the sales proceeds pertaining to March 2001 and April 2001 amounting to Rs.52,256/- and Rs.22,355/-, to the bank on the respective dates. Sri. H.M.Narayana, Junior Assistant, has remitted the sale proceeds of March 2001 amounting to Rs.52,256/- vide Receipt No.3908 dated 7-5-2001. As regards sale proceeds of April 2001 amounting to Rs.22,355/-, he has remitted Rs.12,005 on 14-5-2001 and Rs.10,350 on 17-5-2001. In this manner, he has remitted the sale proceeds belatedly and thus the charge is proved." 14. It is the afore-extracted charge sheet and the statement of imputations the petitioner contends are at variance as the imputations itself accepts that the petitioner has remitted back the amount in a staggered manner while the charge sheet describes that amounts of Rs.52,256/- and Rs.22,355/- have been misappropriated, which would vitiate the entire proceedings. 15. The contention of the learned Counsel that the enquiry stands vitiated on the aforesaid variance is unacceptable to me, as the charge sheet and the statement of imputations form part of a single document on the basis of which the proceedings are required to be conducted against a delinquent employee. It would be hypertechnical, to accept such a contention, in the facts and circumstances of the case, more so in the light of the reply given by the petitioner to the charge sheet and the statement of imputations. 16. It would be hypertechnical, to accept such a contention, in the facts and circumstances of the case, more so in the light of the reply given by the petitioner to the charge sheet and the statement of imputations. 16. Charge sheet was issued against the petitioner invoking Rule 11 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control And Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules' for short), which is initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner. On the receipt of charge sheet, the petitioner by his reply did not submit anything on the merit of the matter, but admitted his guilt by his communication dated 20.08.2002 which reads as follows: 17. The petitioner in terms of the afore extracted reply clearly admitted the allegation of misappropriation to be true. His defence was that he has refunded or remitted the amount misappropriated way back in the year 2001 and is remorseful for the acts committed by him. Except saying this, there is no reply given by the petitioner contesting the charge or the statement of imputations. 18. The disciplinary authority on receipt of reply of the petitioner as extracted hereinabove, chose not to proceed with the enquiry but imposed a penalty of dismissal from service invoking Rule 8 of the said Rules. Charge sheet was issued to the petitioner in terms of Rule 11 of the said Rules. Admission of guilt is dealt with under Rule 11(5) of the said Rules and it reads as follows: "(5) (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into such of the articles of charge as are not admitted or, if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint, under sub-rule (2), an Inquiring Authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charge have been admitted by the Government Servant in his written statement of defence, the Disciplinary Authority shall record its findings on each charge after taking such evidence as it may think fit and shall act in the manner laid down in Rule 11-A. (b) If no written statement of defence is submitted by the Government Servant, the Disciplinary Authority may itself inquire into the articles of charge or may, if it considers it necessary to do so, appoint, under sub-rule (2) an Inquiring Authority for the purpose. (c) Where the Disciplinary Authority itself inquires into any articles of charge or appoints an Inquiring Authority for holding an inquiry into such charge, it may, by an order, appoint a Government Servant or a legal practitioner to be known as the "Presenting Officer" to present on its behalf the case in support of the articles of charge." (emphasis supplied) 19. In terms of the afore-extracted Rules, the enquiry against the Government Servant will have to be conducted only in respect of those charges that were not admitted by the employee in the defence statement given by him/her. If the admission of the petitioner in terms of his aforeextracted communication dated 20.08.2002 is juxtaposed with that of Rules it would unmistakably indicate that disciplinary authority was justified in exercising power in terms of Rule 11A based upon complete admission of guilt of the petitioner. 20. In the appeal filed by the petitioner, Appellate Authority modified the penalty from that of dismissal to compulsory retirement. It is after the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement, the dispute was referred by the appropriate Government to Labour Court to consider whether the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement is valid in law. 21. On the basis of the evidence that was let in before the Labour Court, it came to the conclusion that the reference ought to be rejected, the relevant reasoning of the Labour Court reads as follows: "15. From the material placed on record, it is quite evident that first party had made short remittance to the tune of Rs.52,256/- and Rs.22,355/- for the months of March and April 2001. He has made late deposit of Rs.52,256/- only after the show cause notice was issued and in view of the late remittance he has not chosen to deposit interest at per Ex.M.4 and Ex.M.5. Though first party has claimed that he has deposited Rs.22,355/-, there are no documents to evidence the said fact. By depositing Rs.52,256/- as well as claiming to have deposited Rs.22,355/- first party has admitted the charges leveled against him. Such being the case, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be accepted that he has given reply admitting the charges at the instance of one H.S.Prakash. If at all first party had not committed the misconduct in question, he would not have certainly admitted the charges at whoever's instance. Such being the case, at any stretch of imagination, it cannot be accepted that he has given reply admitting the charges at the instance of one H.S.Prakash. If at all first party had not committed the misconduct in question, he would not have certainly admitted the charges at whoever's instance. The very fact that he has not chosen to given any complaint against H.S.Prakash goes to show that as an after thought he is claiming that reply was given at the instance and assurance of H.S.Prakash. The defence taken by him before this Court is inconsistent with his conduct. Though there is late remittance of Rs.52,256/- leading to temporary misappropriation, he has failed to remit the balance of Rs.22,355/-. Consequently, he is guilty of the misconduct alleged against him." 22. In terms of the afore-extracted reasoning, the Labour Court rejected the dispute. For the aforesaid reasons, there is no warrant for interference with the findings of the Labour Court, which has affirmed the penalty on clear consideration of facts and analysis of evidence lead before it. 23. Insofar as contention of the learned counsel with regard to discrimination in imposition of penalty in terms of what is contended in paragraph No.15 of the writ petition is concerned, it is trite law that equality in terms of Article 14 of Constitution of India is a positive concept and there can be no negative equality in law, it is opposite of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court Union of India v. International Trading Co, (2003) 5 SCC 437 . "13. What remains now to be considered, is the effect of permission granted to the thirty two vessels. As highlighted by learned counsel for the appellants, even if it is accepted that there was any improper permission, that may render such permissions vulnerable so far as the thirty two vessels are concerned, but it cannot come to the aid of the respondents. It is not necessary to deal with that aspect because two wrongs do not make one right. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. A party cannot claim that since something wrong has been done in another case direction should be given for doing another wrong. It would not be setting a wrong right, but would be perpetuating another wrong. In such matters there is no discrimination involved. The concept of equal treatment on the logic of Article 14 of the Constitution of India (in short "the Constitution") cannot be pressed into service in such cases. What the concept of equal treatment presupposes is existence of similar legal foothold. It does not countenance repetition of a wrong action to bring both wrongs on a par. Even if hypothetically it is accepted that a wrong has been committed in some other cases by introducing a concept of negative equality the respondents cannot strengthen their case. They have to establish strength of their case on some other basis and not by claiming negative equality. 24. Imposition of lesser penalties upon other employees of the Corporation in different proceedings at different point in time, albeit in identical misconduct would not enure to the benefit of the petitioner to contend that the same penalty ought to be imposed upon him as well. Thus, none of the contentions urged by the petitioner sounds acceptance. 25. In view of the preceding analysis, the award of the Labour Court does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court. 26. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.