Reinstatement with back wages cannot be granted when charges of misappropriation are proved, as it would reward misappropriation and breed indiscipline.

( 1 ) APPELLANT was appointed as a conductor in the Karnataka State Road Transport corporation (hereinafter referable as the corporation) in the year 1980. On March 12, 1992, the bus which was being conducted by him, was checked by th vigilance staff of the corporation. It was found that he had not issued five tickets having collected fare of Rs. 2 from each of the passengers. He had also failed to issue 5 tickets to the passengers and has also failed to collect the fare from them. A domestic enquiry was ordered and Enquiry Officer was appointed. Domestic enquiry was held against the appellant and the Enquiry Officer reported that the charges were proved. Consequently, the disciplinary authority dismissed the appellant from service with effect from february 28, 1995.

( 2 ) ORDER of dismissal was questioned by the appellant by moving a petition under section 10 (4-A) of the Karnataka Amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) before the Labour Court, Hubli, in kid No. 49/95. Labour Court held that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved, but the punishment awarded was held to be disproportionate to the charges levelled. Exercising his powers under Section 11-A of the Act, the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority was set aside and the respondent was directed to take the appellant back in service. Continuity in service and grant of back wages was declined. Labour Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 4,000 on the appellant to be payable to the Corporation. The fine was ordered to be recovered from the appellant from his monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 500 per month. 2. Order of dismissal was questioned by the appellant by moving a petition under section 10 (4-A) of the Karnataka Amendment of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) before the Labour Court, Hubli, in kid No. 49/95. Labour Court held that the charges levelled against the appellant were proved, but the punishment awarded was held to be disproportionate to the charges levelled. Exercising his powers under Section 11-A of the Act, the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority was set aside and the respondent was directed to take the appellant back in services Continuity in service and grant of back wages was declined. Labour Court also imposed a fine of Rs. 4000 on the appellant to be payable to the Corporation. The fine was ordered to be recovered from the appellant from his monthly wages at the rate of Rs. 500 per month.

( 3 ) APPELLANT being aggrieved, filed the writ Petition which has been partly accepted by the single Judge. The finding of the Labour court that the charges stood proved against the appellant has been upheld. Order of reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court has been maintained. In addition, continuity in service is granted. Fine imposed is waived. Back wages have been denied.

( 4 ) AGGRIEVED against the order of the single Judge, present appeal has been filed. Corporation has accepted the order of the single judge and has not preferred any appeal.

( 5 ) SUPREME Court of India in Janatha bazaar (South Kanara Central Co-operative wholesale Stores Ltd.) and Others v. Secretary, Sahakari Noukara Sangha and Ors. , air 2000 SC 3129 : 2000 (7) SCC 517 : 2000-II-LLJ-1395 held that it would be unjustified to issue a direction to reinstate an employee against whom the charges of misappropriation have been established. A proven act of misappropriation cannot be taken lightly even though number of such misappropriation cases remain undisclosed and such employees have amassed wealth by such means. Misappropriation cannot be rewarded or legalised by reinstatement with full or part of the back wages. It was observed in para 6 thus: 2000-II-LLJ-1395 at p. 1397:"6. As stated above, the learned single judge and the Division Bench in writ appeals confirmed the findings given by the labour Court that charges against the workmen or breach of trust and misappropriation of