The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proportionality in punishment and the fiduciary responsibility of employees in handling public money.

Dipak Misra, J.

The present appeal is directed against the order dated July 24, 2009 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 10355/2009. The Appellant-writ Petitioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Appellant'), being grieved by the award dated January 25, 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, had invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. As set forth, he was appointed as a conductor with the Delhi Transport Corporation (DTC) on August 1, 1983 On September 16, 1993 while he was on duty in Bus No. 9870 on inter-State route from Delhi to Chhutmulpur, the checking staff checked the bus at Gagal Hedi and found that three passengers were travelling from Saharanpur to Gagal Hedi without having tickets though the Appellant had collected a fare of Rs. 5/- from each of them. The enquiry proceeding was initiated against him by issue of a chargesheet under para 19(a), (b), (c), (f) and (h) of the Standing Orders applicable to DTC employees. In the domestic enquiry, he was found guilty and the disciplinary authority passed an order of removal with effect from October 27, 1994 An industrial dispute being raised, the concerned Government referred the matter for adjudication to the Labour Court. Initially, the issue was raised with regard to the propriety and justifiability of the enquiry proceedings and the Labour Court, vide order dated January 4, 2008 decided the said issue in favour of the management. The Labour Court, as is evincible, had come to hold that there had been no violation of the principles of natural justice; that the Appellant-workman was afforded adequate opportunity to defend his case; that all documents on which the management had placed reliance were supplied to him; and that the Appellant had cross-examined the witnesses that were produced by the management in the course of domestic enquiry. The Industrial Adjudicator, vide award dated January 25, 2008 came to hold that the charges had been proved and the penalty of removal that had been imposed was not disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the Appellant.

2. Before the learned single Judge, it was contended that the industrial adjudicator had fallen into error by not appreciating Regulation 15-A of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952 which protected the shortage noticed by the checking staff, the same being only to the tune of Rs. 15/-. The learned single Judge came to hold that the said Regulation is not applicable when the misconduct is proved; that the disciplinary authority as well as the industrial adjudicator had taken note of the past service record of the Appellant-workman which related to similar types of misconduct; that the Appellant was punished earlier on two occasions and despite the same, he did not deter himself from issuing tickets to the passengers after collecting fare from them and that the order recorded by the industrial adjudicator did not warrant any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.

3. We have heard Mr. K.K. Patel, learned Counsel for the Appellant, and Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, learned Counsel for the Respondent-DTC.

4. Questioning the legal substantiality of the award, Mr. Patel, learned Counsel for the Appellant, has raised the following contentions :

(a) The learned single Judge has fallen into error by not setting aside the award on the ground that the management had failed to produce the passengers who were travelling without ticket as witnesses as a result of which a dent has crept into the justifiability of the award.

(b) Regulation 15-A of the Regulations is protective in nature regard being had to the nature of the work of the conductors but the same has been given a total go-by by the learned single Judge by cryptically coming to the conclusion that the same is not applicable to the case at hand.

(c) The industrial adjudicator as well as the learned single Judge have erroneously r