ORDER : 1. This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubballi, in KID No. 16/2018. 2. Brief facts leading to this case are that while the petitioner was working as Conductor with the respondent Corporation, he was issued with articles of charge dated 19.12.2014 alleging that while on duty on 29.11.2014 on Hubballi-Byahatti route, petitioner was subjected to breathalyzer check at 12.02 p.m. The result indicated that he had consumed alcohol and was on duty which was a misconduct. The petitioner submitted reply on 19.12.2014 stating that the previous day he was suffering from ill health and had consumed some over-the counter-medicine. Though he was not f it for duty, the officials of the Corporation forced him to go on route. And when he was subjected to breathalyzer test, the result was not due to his consumption of alcohol but due to contents of the medicine. It was also contended that petitioner was not under influence of alcohol and had performed his duty as Conductor in all earnest. 3. Not satisfied with his reply, disciplinary authority ordered for holding of departmental enquiry and appointed Enquiry Officer. After due participation of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer concluded the same and submitted a report on 05.03.2018. Attaching a copy of the same, second show cause notice was issued cal ling for his representation, if any, against the findings in the enquiry. No reply was filed. Taking note of the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the previous work history of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal from service on 13.06.2018. 4. Challenging the order of dismissal, the petitioner workman filed KID No. 16/2018 before the Labour Court, Hubballi under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 5. On service of notice, the respondent herein entered appearance and filed objections stating that the breathalyzer test conducted on the petitioner on 29.11.2014 indicated presence of alcohol in the blood stream of the petitioner at 55 mg/100 ml. and the screen of the breathalyzer machine was also flashing in red colour indicating that petitioner had consumed alcohol. The Checking Inspectors submitted report affixing their signatures and an offence memo had also been issued on the spot. and the screen of the breathalyzer machine was also flashing in red colour indicating that petitioner had consumed alcohol. The Checking Inspectors submitted report affixing their signatures and an offence memo had also been issued on the spot. Thereafter as the reply submitted was not acceptable, departmental proceedings were initiated and concluded in accordance with law. The Enquiry Officer had held the charges against petitioner, proved. Based on said finding, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded to pass the order of punishment dismissing the petitioner from service. While passing the order of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority took note of service history of petitioner. It was contended that order of punishment was passed after due compliance with the procedure and the same did not call for any interference. 6. Based on pleadings, Labour Court framed following issues: 1. Whether the respondent management proves that inquiry conducted against the workman is fair and proper? 2. Whether the punishment awarded is adequate? 3. Whether the workman is entitled to the reliefs sought for? 4. What order and award? 7. In support of his case, the petitioner examined himself as WW-1 and did not mark any document. On behalf of the respondents, an official of the Corporation was examined as MW-1 and Exs.M1 to M25 were marked. 8. On consideration, the Labour Court answered issue No. 1 and 2 in the affirmative and issue No. 3 in the negative. Consequently, it answered issue No. 4 by dismissing the claim petition vide an award dated 12.03.2020. Challenging the same, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. 9. Sri. S.B. Malligwad, learned counsel for petitioner submitted as follows: That the petitioner was unwell and had consumed medication for the same, but the officials of respondent-Corporation forcibly sent him on duty. It was also submitted that presence of alcohol in blood stream could be confirmed only by a proper blood test. Hence the charge could not be held proved. Besides due to effect of medicine consumed, the breathalyzer test showed erroneous result. It was further contended that when petitioner was sent on duty forcibly, he could not be held solely responsible. Even then he performed his duty perfectly. The checking of passengers of bus revealed that all passengers issued with tickets. There was neither any shortfall nor any excess amount found with him, which indicated that he was not under influence of alcohol. Even then he performed his duty perfectly. The checking of passengers of bus revealed that all passengers issued with tickets. There was neither any shortfall nor any excess amount found with him, which indicated that he was not under influence of alcohol. Therefore the order of dismissal from service was utterly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. 10. It was also submitted that reliance upon petitioner’s service history by Disciplinary Authority while passing order of punishment was a grave irregularity as service history was neither made part of the articles of charge nor any opportunity was afforded to petitioner to respond to the same. On the said grounds, petitioner sought for quashing the award of Labour Court and for reinstatement of petitioner into service. 11. On the other hand, Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for respondent- Corporation submitted that the fact that petitioner while on duty tested positive for consumption of alcohol after breathalyzer test was not in dispute. That the test revealed presence of alcohol to an extent of 50 mg/100 ml. in the blood of petitioner is also not in dispute. Merely on the ground that petitioner was found to have issued tickets to all passengers and amount of money found with him was in order, does not write away the serious misconduct of consuming alcohol and performing duty. Severity of misconduct when considered in the light of his service history duly entailed order of dismissal from service. The punishment was imposed after holding due enquiry with the participation of the petitioner. The Labour Court upon examination of the evidence, rightly dismissed the claim petition and therefore instant case did not call for exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction and sought for dismissal of writ petition. 12. From the above submissions, points of dispute between the parties are as follows: 1. Whether the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner had consumed alcohol and was performing duty based on the result of breathalyzer test would be justified without subjecting the petitioner to blood test? 2. Whether the order of punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate? 3. Whether the Labour Court committed an error in not interfering with the order of punishment? 13. 2. Whether the order of punishment of dismissal from service was disproportionate? 3. Whether the Labour Court committed an error in not interfering with the order of punishment? 13. Before embarking upon examination of the above, it is to be noted that the scope for interference with an award passed by the Labour Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court is extremely limited. Further, as per the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cholan Roadways Limited vs. G. Thirugnanasambandam, AIR 2005 SC 570 , the standard of proof applicable to departmental proceedings is by preponderance of probabilities as against proof beyond reasonable doubt in criminal trial. 14. In the case on hand, the Enquiry Officer has based his finding on the breathalyzer test, which showed presence of alcohol to an extent of 50 mg/100 ml. The fact that the test was conducted is not disputed by contending that the results were due to medicines consumed by him. Thus, it was incumbent on the petitioner to lead positive evidence to establish his defence beyond doubt to rule out the possibility of he having consumed alcohol. But except taking a contention, there is no effort to discharge this onus. Therefore, the finding of Enquiry Officer cannot be stated to be either without any evidence or that the conclusion was capricious. Therefore, challenge to finding of Enquiry Officer is liable to be rejected. 15. As regards contention regarding service history, an examination of the records reveals that Ex.M.10-article of charge does not include service history as one of the charges. Even the second show cause notice-Ex.M.22 issued along with the Enquiry Report also does not mention enclosure of history sheet. However, the order of punishment-Ex.M.25 admittedly refers to history sheet while deciding quantum of punishment. Thus it is established that the petitioner has not been provided with opportunity of responding to the history sheet, the order of punishment would be liable for interference. The said aspect has been lost sight of by the Labour Court. 16. However, the order of punishment-Ex.M.25 admittedly refers to history sheet while deciding quantum of punishment. Thus it is established that the petitioner has not been provided with opportunity of responding to the history sheet, the order of punishment would be liable for interference. The said aspect has been lost sight of by the Labour Court. 16. Though under normal circumstances it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to take an appropriate decision on the quantum of punishment, in view of the fact that substantial period of time has transpired in departmental proceedings and thereafter before Labour Court, this Court feels it just and appropriate to impose pass an appropriate order of punishment commensurate to the misconduct in order to put a quietus between the parties. While doing so, age of petitioner and length of service remaining are also taken into account. The fact that the default history of the petitioner does not mention of any earlier instance of alcohol related misconduct is also taken into account. At the same time the need of the employer to maintain a high image amongst the traveling public is also taken into account. Considering the above, I am of the opinion that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the misconduct especially as the petitioner has not been held guilty of financial misdemeanor. Hence, I proceed to pass the following order. ORDER: Writ petition is allowed in part. The award dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Labour Court is quashed. The impugned order of punishment dated 13.06.2018 Annexure-E passed by the respondent is set aside and instead a reformative punishment of withholding of four annual increments with cumulative effect is imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner shall also give an affidavit within four weeks from receipt of certified copy of this order undertaking not to indulge in similar misconduct in future. The respondent-Corporation shall reinstate the petitioner into service within four weeks thereafter. The petitioner shall be entitled to continuity of service on notional basis and shall not be entitled for any backwages.