JUDGMENT : A.P. THAKER, J. 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner-employer under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the impugned award dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot (hereinafter be referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Reference (I.T.) No. 123 of 2012 whereby the Tribunal has quashed the order of stoppage of the increments for six months with permanent effect and the employer was directed to fix pay after considering notional pay during the period in question and pay all consequential benefits. 2. The facts of the case are that the employer has preferred this petition on the ground that the employee was a conductor and he has not issued ticket to the passenger though he has recovered Rs. 6/- on 05.08.2003 on Jamnagar-Kalawad-Dhoraji local route. It is contended that the necessary departmental inquiry was held against the conductor and he was afforded opportunity of hearing and after such inquiry, he was awarded the aforesaid punishment. Against that punishment, the conductor has preferred departmental appeal which came to be dismissed. It is further contended that after almost six years, he has preferred the aforesaid reference which came to be allowed by the Tribunal on the ground that during the department inquiry, the witnesses were not examined and no other documents were recorded and there was breach of natural justice and, ultimately, the departmental inquiry along with punishment came to be quashed. It is also contended that the conductor has even not challenged the departmental inquiry and he has only challenged the punishment. According to the petitioner, the award passed by the concerned Industrial Tribunal is not in consonance with the well settled principles of law and it is perverse and it is required to be quashed and set aside. 3. Initially, the respondent-workman was served, however, he has chosen not to appear before the Court and, therefore, by order dated 20.06.2016, the impugned award came to be stayed. Even after issuance of the fresh process, the workman did not appear. 4. Heard Mr. Deepak Aloria, learned advocate for the petitioner through video conferencing. He has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition. Even after issuance of the fresh process, the workman did not appear. 4. Heard Mr. Deepak Aloria, learned advocate for the petitioner through video conferencing. He has submitted the same facts which are narrated in the memo of petition. He has relied upon the following decisions in support of his arguments that it is the authority so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned and the Tribunal cannot weigh the quantum of penalty in golden scales: 1. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vinod Kumar, (2008) 1 SCC 115 2. Divisional Controller, G.S.R.T.C. vs. Arjunbhai Mohanbhai Vaghela and Another, 2018 (3) GLR 2460 4.1 According to him, when the inquiry is legal and fair, the Tribunal cannot interfere with the punishment except in a case where it comes to the conclusion that the findings of the Inquiry Officer was perverse one. He has prayed to allow the petition and set aside the impugned award of the Tribunal. 5. In the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Vinod Kumar (supra), the Apex Court has observed that in absence of challenge to the legality or fairness of the departmental inquiry, it is not open to the Labour Court to go into the findings recorded by the enquiry officer regarding the misconduct committed by the concerned employee. It is held therein that it is well settled that the punishment of removal/dismissal is the appropriate punishment for an employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds; and the Courts should be reluctant to reduce the punishment on misplaced sympathy for a workman. It is observed therein that there is nothing wrong in the employer losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. 6. In the case of Divisional Controller, G.S.R.T.C. (supra), this Court has observed that when inquiry is legal and fair, the Tribunal cannot interfere with punishment in absence of conclusion that findings by Inquiry Officer is perverse and it is not permissible for Tribunal to interfere with punishment which is short of discharge or dismissal. It is also observed therein that a conductor enjoys the position of trust and confidence and acts as a trustee of the Corporation and it is his duty to safeguard the interest of the Corporation. It is also observed therein that a conductor enjoys the position of trust and confidence and acts as a trustee of the Corporation and it is his duty to safeguard the interest of the Corporation. His such conduct would not only amount to misconduct but also corruption and such conduct by a person holding post of trust cannot be viewed lightly. It is also observed therein that it is not for the learned Tribunal to weigh the quantum of penalty in golden scales. The discretion to determine quantum of penalty in case of proved misconduct is within the realm of the employer. It is also observed that the learned Tribunal would not interfere with the said decision unless it is established that the employer acted with mala-fide and to victimize the employee and that the quantum of penalty determined by the Tribunal is shockingly disproportionate. 7. Now, considering the submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner and considering the aforesaid legal principles and the facts of the present case, it appears that the concerned conductor has not issued ticket though he has recovered Rs. 6/- from the passenger. It also appears from the record that the conductor has not challenged the departmental inquiry, however, he has challenged the punishment awarded by the competent authority in the inquiry. Thus, it is an admitted fact that there is no challenge to the findings of facts of commission of the act in non-issuing the ticket to the passenger even after receiving Rs. 6/- from the passenger. As observed in the aforesaid decision, the conductor enjoys the position of trust and confidence and acts as a trustee of the Corporation and it is his duty to safeguard the interest of the Corporation. The act of conductor in not issuing the tickets after receiving the amount from the passenger is not an act of not only misconduct, but it is corruption. 8. It also reveals that after conducting inquiry, the competent authority has passed order of punishment of stopping of increment for six months with permanent effect. Now, in absence of challenge to the finding of facts, the Tribunal has no authority to interfere with the award of the punishment by the employer. It is for the employer to award punishment to its employee. Now, in absence of challenge to the finding of facts, the Tribunal has no authority to interfere with the award of the punishment by the employer. It is for the employer to award punishment to its employee. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that since the delinquent has not challenged the findings of the entire inquiry, the Tribunal ought not to have gone into that aspects of the matter. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal in going into the entire exercise of the departmental inquiry is beyond its scope. Despite of this fact, the Tribunal has interfered with the penalty and has passed impugned award which is factually as well as legally not sustainable in the eyes of law. The same deserves to be set aside. 9. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the present petition is liable to be allowed and it is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned award dated 27.08.2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (I.T.) No. 123 of 2012 is hereby quashed and set aside and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is restored. Rule is made absolute.