S. B. SINHA, C. J.

( 1 ) THIS matter has been listed before us on the reference made by a learned Single judge of this Court for resolving the following questions of law: (1) In case where there has been no criminal prosecution resulting in conviction whether the quantum of amount misappropriated or embezzled by a delinquent official can be taken into consideration in deciding the adequacy or otherwise of the punishment? (2) If the amount embezzled or misappropriated is too meagre and the punishment given is removal from service, which is the ultimate punishment, can it be termed as shockingly disproportionate?

( 2 ) BEFORE adverting to the aforesaid questions, the fact of the matter may be noticed.

( 3 ) THE petitioner herein had been working as a Conductor in the Organization of the respondents herein. Certain charges were framed against him, which are in the following terms:charge-1: For having collected an amount of Rs. 35. 00 instead of Rs. 45. 00 from a batch of 23 passengers at the boarding point itself and failed to issue tickets who boarded the bus at gangavaram and found alighting without tickets at Dibbalapalem (Ex. stages 2 to 1), while conducting the bus bearing No. AEZ 5847 on route no. 65 on 10-1-99, which constitutes misconduct on your part in terms of reg. 28 (x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regs. , 1963. Charge-II: For having failed to collect the fare and issue tickets to 5 individual passengers, who boarded the bus at Gangavaram and found alighting at Dibbalapalem (Ex. stages 1 to 1), while conducting the bus bearing no. AEZ 5847 on route No. 38 on 10-1-1999, which constitutes misconduct on your part in terms of reg. 28 (vi) (a) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regs. , 1963. Charge-Ill: For having closed the S. R. of all denominations except Rs. 2. 00 at stage No. 7 to 1, while conducting the bus bearing No. AEZ 5847 on route no. 65 on 10-1-1999, which Constitutes misconduct on your part in terms of reg. 28 (xxxii) of AESRTC Employees (Conduct) Regs. , 1963.

( 4 ) AS the explanation of the petitioner to the said charges was not found satisfactory, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him and the enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges levelled against him. The petitioner, upon giving an opportunity of hearing as regards the quantum of punishment, was imposed with the punishment of removal from service. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition is filed.

( 5 ) THE learned Single Judge having regard to the decisions of this Court in /. Venkatasubbaiah v. The Labour Court,- awnthapur, G. V. M. Reddy v. APSRTC and y. R. Shetti v. Depot Manager, APSKTP (Division Bench) on the one hand and the decision of a learned Single Judge of this court in P. Maheswar Rao v. Presiding Officer wherein the decisions of the Apex Court in Municipal Committee Bhadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari and State of Tamilnadu v. K. Guruswamy were relied upon, on the other hand, and recent decisions of the apex Court in U. P. State Road Transport corporation v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and u. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Subhash Chandra Sharma opined that a larger Bench should consider the matter.

( 6 ) FOR the purpose of answering the questions referred to by the learned Judge, we are of the opinion that the matter has to be considered from the point of view that this court in such matters has a limited role to play. In terms of Section 11-A of the industrial Disputes Act, the Labour Court/ industrial Tribunal has been conferred wide power to consider as to whether the punishment imposed upon a delinquent- workman is legal or justified or not but has also been conferred with power to award a lesser punishment in the event it is held that the punishment imposed is not proportionate to the gravity of misconduct charged against the delinquent-workman. However, the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment is limited. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India relying upon the decision in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document