The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of evidence and the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings, as well as the consideration of 'shockingly disproportionate' punishment in determining the appropriateness of reinstatement with back wages.

( 1 ) THIS intra court appeal has been preferred by the north west Karnataka road transport corporation against the order dated October 11, 1999 passed in W. P. No. 37003 of 1999 by the learned single judge directing reinstatement of the respondent-conductor but with denial of 75% back wages from the date of the order of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.

( 2 ) THE respondent is employed with the appellant-corporation as conductor. On July 15, 1993, when the bus bearing No. 3905 plying on the route talikote-godakhandi, which he was conducting, was intercepted and inspected by the checking squad. It was found that he had failed to issue tickets to 6 passengers out of 33 passengers travelling from talikote to fatepur despite collection of fares. On being examined, the passengers stated that though fare was collected from them by the respondent-conductor but he had failed to issue tickets. Accordingly, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. In the duly conducted enquiry, the charges of non-issue of tickets and non-compliance of Rule 'issue and start' against him were found established and therefore he was subjected to major punishment of dismissal from service.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, the respondent raised an industrial dispute under the Provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the labour court. Since the labour court did not find the domestic enquiry to be fair and proper, it permitted the parties to adduce their evidence. The labour court keeping in view the evidence led, held that the charge of pilferage was not proved merely on the ground that none of the passengers had been examined during the adjudication proceedings and the checking staff had failed to check the cash balance with the respondent-conductor and therefore it could not be said that the respondent-conductor had collected fare from the said passengers.

( 4 ) IN our opinion, the view taken by the labour court is clearly fallacious and contrary to the law declared by the Supreme Court in various cases.

( 5 ) IN the case of D. C. Roy v Presiding Officer, labour court and others, AIR 1976 SC 1760 : 1976 (3) SCC 693, the appellant, who was working as a ticket examiner in the Madhya Pradesh state road transport corporation, on a proved charge of his colluding with the conductor of the corporation's bus, who despite collection of fare had failed to issue tickets to 9-1/2 passengers, was dismissed from service as a measure of punishment. The Supreme Court upheld the punishment by holding that:"the appellant having acted dishonestly in connection with the business of the corporation, he was clearly guilty of a major misconduct".

( 6 ) SIMILAR view, as in the above case, was taken by a three judges bench of the Supreme Court in the case of state of Haryana and another V. Rattan Singh AIR 1977 SC 1512 : 1977 (2) SCC 491 : 1982-I-LLJ-46. In this case as well, the conductor of the haryana road transport corporation was found guilty of not issuing tickets to 11 pasesengers despite collection of fare from them. On establishment of the guilt in the domestic enquiry, his services were terminated. He challenged the order before the civil court and succeeded. State's appeal'before the district judge and the high court failed. On appeal, the Supreme Court upheld the termination.

( 7 ) IN the case of rattan singh (supra), the principal ground on which the courts below had declared the termination as bad was that none of the 11 passengers had been examined in the domestic enquiry. The explanation of the state was that according to the inspector of flying squad, the passengers who had said that they had paid fares declined to give written statement. Taking into account the above facts borne out from the records the Supreme Court took the view that 1982-i-llj-46 at 47,48:" 5. Reliance was placed as earlier stated, on the non compliance with the departmental instruction that statements of passengers should be recorded bylnspectors. These are instru