( 1 ) THERE is a time for everything. There is a time for showing sympathy. There is also a time for being strict. Problems arise when one enters by the wrong time-door and shows sympathy where strictness is called for and vice versa. And the present is the case which sharpens the profile of this problem. The Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation had dismissed a conductor who was found guilty of collecting fare from passengers without issuing tickets. The Labour Court which was exercising jurisdiction for reducing punishment under sec. 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947 had undoubtedly wide discretion in the matter of reduction of punishment as held by us in R. M. Parmar v. Gujarat Electricity Board Baroda 23 G. L. R. 352. We re-affirm the nine propositions enunciated therein viz. : (1) There is widespread unemployment in our country and it is difficult to secure a job to earn enough to keep body and soul together unlike in developed countries: (2) The State does not provide social benefits like unemployment allowance to enable a discharged employee to sustain himself and his family to some extent as is being done in the developed countries: (3) In imposing punishment on an erring employee an enlightened approach informed with the demands of the situation and the philosophy and spirit of the times requires to be made. It cannot be a matter of ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority depending on his whim or caprice: (4) Be it administration of criminal law or the exercise of disciplinary jurisdiction in departmental proceedings punishment is not and cannot be the end in itself. Punishment for the sake of punishment cannot be the motto. Whilst deliberating upon the jurisprudential dimension the following factors must be considered:1 In a disciplinary proceeding for an alleged fault of an employee punishment is imposed not in order to seek retribution or to give vent to feeling of wrath. 2 The main purpose of a punishment is to correct the fault of the employee concerned by making him more alert in the future and to hold out a warning to the other employees to be careful in the discharge of their duties so that they do not expose themselves to similar punishment. And the approach to be made is the approach parents make towards an erring or misguided child. 3 It is not expedient in the interest of the administration to visit every employee against whom a fault is established with the penalty of dismissal and to get rid of them. It would be counter productive to do so for it would be futile to expect to recruit employees who are so perfect that they would never commit any fault. 4 In order not to attract the charge of arbitrariness it has to be ensured that the penalty imposed is commensurate with the magnitude of the fault. Surely one cannot rationally or justly impose the same penalty for giving a slap as one would impose for homicide. 5 When penalties of different categories can be imposed in respect of the alleged fault one of which is dismissal from service the disciplinary authority per force is required to consult himself for selecting the most appropriate penalty from out of the range of penalties available that can be imposed having regard to the nature extent and gravity of the default. Unless the disciplinary authorial reaches the conclusion that having regard to the nature content and magnitude of the fault committed by the employee concerned it would be absolutely unsafe to retain him in service. the maximum penalty of dismissal Cannot be imposed. If a lesser penalty can be imposed without seriously jeopardising the interest of the employer the disciplinary authority cannot impose the maximum penalty of dismissal from service. He is bound to ask his inner voice and rational faculty why a lesser penalty cannot be imposed. 6 It cannot be overlooked that by and large it is because the maximum penalty is imposed and total ruination stares one in the eyes that the employee concerned is obliged