ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved of the award dated 04.06.2002 (Annex.13) passed by Labour Court, Bikaner, whereby the Labour Court came to the conclusion that removal of the workman dated 13.08.1987 was not justified and looking to his misconduct, instead of removal, the punishment was substituted by stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. It was further ordered that the workman will be entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service. Further directions were given that outstanding amount of Rs.2,739.61 alongwith 9 per cent interest would be deposited by the workman and in case the same was not deposited, the same would be recovered from his salary. The Labour Court observed that the workman would not be entitled to any salary from the date of removal to the date of the award, however, he would be entitled to salary from the date of the award. 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the petition that the workman, a salesman on the medical shop, operated by petitioner-Bhandar was working and during course of his employment, he committed various irregularities and on inspection it was found that medicines worth Rs.41,475.34 were short in the stock. The workman deposited only Rs.22,310.67 and as such embezzled Rs.19,164.67. A charge sheet was issued to him on 18.10.1985, which was duly served on him. He appeared before the Disciplinary Authority on 10.01.1986 and 06.02.1986 and recorded his statements, wherein he admitted that he has embezzled fund of the Bhandar and has committed breach of trust. Though he was provided opportunity to submit his explanation for not depositing the money, he didn’t submit his explanation. 3. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter appointed Enquiry Officer by order dated 26.07.1987, who initiated process of enquiry by issuing notice, which was received by the workman, however, he didn’t appear before the Enquiry Officer. Again a notice was issued, which was also received, however, again the workman didn’t appear and, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated, wherein the evidence of management was recorded and after taking into consideration the evidence of the management, the Enquiry Officer found the charges of misappropriation proved and submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority. 4. Again a notice was issued, which was also received, however, again the workman didn’t appear and, therefore, exparte proceedings were initiated, wherein the evidence of management was recorded and after taking into consideration the evidence of the management, the Enquiry Officer found the charges of misappropriation proved and submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority. 4. The Disciplinary Authority issued show cause notice dated 21.07.1987 to the workman to show cause as to why his services may not be terminated, which notice was received by the workman, however, despite receipt of the notice, no explanation was submitted, resulting in the Disciplinary Authority passing the order dated 13.08.1987, dismissing the workman. 5. The workman approached the civil court by filing a civil suit, the suit was decreed, which was challenged by way of filing appeal, wherein the District Judge, Bikaner allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. 6. The workman initiated proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (‘Act’), wherein a reference was made under Section 10 of the Act to the Labour Court, Bikaner vide notification dated 04.08.1995. Before the Labour Court, statement of claim was filed by the workman, to which a response was filed by the petitioner. Whereafter, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry conducted by the management was unfair and provided opportunity to prove the misconduct under Section 11-A of the Act. 7. On behalf of management, affidavit was filed and the workman also filed his affidavit. The witnesses were cross-examined. After hearing the parties, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that in the charge sheet issued to the workman, it was not indicated that the proceedings are being initiated under which provision and even in the order terminating the services dated 13.08.1987, no reference has been made to any provision and, therefore, as the enquiry and termination has taken place without Rules, the same was not justified. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the amount of embezzlement was so small that the punishment of termination was not proportionate and, therefore also, the termination was not justified. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that the amount of embezzlement was so small that the punishment of termination was not proportionate and, therefore also, the termination was not justified. The Labour Court while dealing with the aspect of embezzlement came to the conclusion that the allegation against the workman was of embezzlement of Rs.41,475.34, out of which the workman has deposited Rs.38,735.73 and presently only a sum of Rs.2,739.61 was due and, therefore, it cannot be said that he has committed any embezzlement. Further observations were made that for the purpose of embezzlement mens rea was necessary, which has not been proved. The Labour Court also came to the conclusion that as the shops of Upbhokta Bhandar are normally crowded by customers, there is likelihood of giving more medicines and recovering less amount from the customers and as the amount has been deposited, the criminal intent was missing and as noticed, passed the award impugned. 8. During pendency of the present petition, the workman died and his legal representatives have been taken on record. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the award passed by the Labour Court is ex-facie illegal. Submissions have been made that the observations made in the order that as the provisions under which the enquiry has been held, have not been indicated, in absence of the provisions for holding the enquiry, the enquiry was bad, has no substance, inasmuch as by notification dated 03.03.1980 (Annex.14), the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Rajasthan Jaipur has laid down the procedure for disciplinary action against the employees of the Cooperative Institutions, wherein it has been provided that the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (‘Rules of 1958’) shall apply with amendments made thereto from time to time and that the entire enquiry has been proceeded strictly in accordance with the Rules of 1958 and, therefore, the observations made in the award impugned based on the said ground for setting aside the termination, has no substance. 10. 10. Further submissions have been made that the finding recorded that the punishment imposed was disproportionate also has no substance, inasmuch as in a case of embezzlement, the quantum of embezzlement is not relevant, howsoever small amount of embezzlement may be, the same results in loss of confidence and the only punishment, which can be imposed for such misconduct, is termination of the services and, therefore, the award impugned passed on account of purported disproportionate punishment deserves to be set aside. Reliance has been placed on Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. vs. Bajranglal : (2014) 4 SCC 693 . 11. It was emphasized that once it is an admitted case that an amount of more than Rs.41,000/-was outstanding and Rs.38,000/-were deposited by the workman, the same is a clear admission of embezzlement and, therefore, the observations made about the shortfall taking place on account of crowd at the medical shop cannot be countenanced. It was prayed that the award impugned be set aside. 12. Learned counsel for the respondent made vehement submissions that once the Labour Court after coming to the conclusion that the workman was not having any criminal intent and mens rea insofar as the shortfall was concerned, came to the conclusion that the punishment imposed was disproportionate, the award impugned does not call for any interference. Submissions have been made that the petitioner has failed to prove the charge of embezzlement as the shortfall was on account of working of the medical shop, wherein on account of huge turnover, there is always a likelihood of the customers paying less and taking more medicines which resulted in the shortfall, which in any case, has been deposited by the workman and therefore, the award impugned is justified, which does not call for any interference. It was prayed that the petition be dismissed. 13. I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. A perusal of the charge sheet issued to the workman reveals that a detailed account was indicated, wherein over a period of about five years, on physical verification of the stock, every time the goods were found short, which tendency increased in the year 1984-85, wherein the deficit was Rs.41,475.34. 14. A perusal of the charge sheet issued to the workman reveals that a detailed account was indicated, wherein over a period of about five years, on physical verification of the stock, every time the goods were found short, which tendency increased in the year 1984-85, wherein the deficit was Rs.41,475.34. Time to time recoveries were effected from the workman and it was found that despite the shortfall, the amount deposited by the workman was short, based on which he was charged with embezzlement. Despite grant of opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority, no response was given, which resulted in appointment of the Enquiry Officer, there also despite notice the workman didn’t appear, which resulted in enquiry report by the Enquiry Officer finding the workman guilty of the charges and when the Disciplinary Authority issued notice alongwith enquiry report, and no response was given, the impugned order dated 13.08.1987 was passed dismissing the workman. The Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry was not fair and provided opportunity to prove the misconduct before it, wherein the affidavits were filed and cross-examination took place. 15. The Labour Court based its award on three counts viz. (i) no indication was made as to under what provision the enquiry was being held, (ii) the punishment was disproportionate and (iii) there was no mens rea involved in the deficit. 16. The award of the Labour Court, is on its face contradictory, inasmuch as though it came to the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not fair and provided opportunity, wherein after evidence was led, it came to the conclusion that the workman had committed misconduct, inasmuch as the Labour Court has substituted the punishment of dismissal with, stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, which also is a major punishment under the Rules of 1958. However, the Labour Court has taken the aspect of proved embezzlement lightly holding that after deposit of the amount by the workman, the outstanding was too low, so as to visit with penalty of dismissal from the service. The said approach of the Labour Court cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as the quantum of embezzlement cannot be a determining factor insofar as imposition of punishment is concerned. Once a workman is found to have been involved in embezzlement, the loss of confidence is obvious and the management based on such loss of confidence, is justified in dismissing the employee. The said approach of the Labour Court cannot be countenanced, inasmuch as the quantum of embezzlement cannot be a determining factor insofar as imposition of punishment is concerned. Once a workman is found to have been involved in embezzlement, the loss of confidence is obvious and the management based on such loss of confidence, is justified in dismissing the employee. 17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bajranglal (supra) has categorically laid down that the only punishment in the case of proved case of corruption is dismissal from the service and, inter-alia, held as infra: - “19. As regards the question of disproportionate punishment is concerned, the issue is no more res-integra. In U.P State Road Transport Corporation v. Suresh Chand Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 555 , it was held as under: “22. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari, AIR 1996 SC 1249 this Court held as under: (SCC p. 715, para 4) “4. … In a case of such nature—indeed, in cases involving corruption—there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant.” Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, AIR 1975 SC 2025 , U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary, (1997) 11 SCC 370 , Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Coop. Wholesale Stores Ltd.) v. Sahakari Noukarara Sangha, (2000) 7 SCC 517 , Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti, AIR 2001 SC 930 and Rajasthan SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma, (2002) 10 SCC 330.” 20. In view of the above, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent employee, that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the delinquency is not worth acceptance. The only punishment in case of the proved case of corruption is dismissal from service.” 18. So far as non-mentioning of the provision while holding enquiry is concerned, the mentioning of the provision while holding enquiry/sending a show cause notice by itself cannot vitiate the enquiry. The only punishment in case of the proved case of corruption is dismissal from service.” 18. So far as non-mentioning of the provision while holding enquiry is concerned, the mentioning of the provision while holding enquiry/sending a show cause notice by itself cannot vitiate the enquiry. Admittedly, by notification dated 03.03.1980 (Annex.14), the provisions of Rules of 1958 were applied to the Cooperative Institutions and as noticed hereinbefore, all requisite steps under the provisions of Rules of 1958 were taken by the management and, therefore, it cannot be said that non-mentioning of the provision was fatal to the order of termination. Besides the above, once the Labour Court itself after taking the proceedings under Section 11-A of the Act has come to the conclusion regarding misconduct of the workman, the said aspect goes in oblivious. 19. Insofar as the finding about lack of criminal intent and mens rea is concerned, the said aspect itself stands negated from the conduct of the workman, inasmuch as in case the stand of the workman was that shortfall was not on account of his conduct/working, and was only a result of the nature of the medical shop, there was no reason for him to deposit the amount of shortfall. Once the amount of shortfall stands deposited by him, the same essentially is an admission on his part that the deficit was on account of his conduct, i.e. embezzlement only. 20. In view of above, the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court cannot be sustained. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The award impugned dated 04.06.2002 (Annex.13) is quashed and set aside.