The instant writ petition is directed against the order dated 28/05/1996 (Ann.3) passed by the respondents whereby, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of notional pay fixation.

2) The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that petitioner was appointed as Conductor with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation on 01/08/1975. His services were terminated on 17/10/1978 on the charge that he had not issued tickets even though payment had been collected from three passengers. He challenged the order of termination before the Labour Court. The Labour Court vide award dated 10/01/1983 directed that instead of dismissal, petitioner is liable to be punished with stoppage of two annual grade increments without cumulative effect, and he has to be reinstated with continuity in service but without back wages.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that although Labour Court had directed that two annual grade increments without cumulative effect of the petitioner should be withheld but the respondents have even withheld the future increments, which is not permissible. He has further contended that respondents themselves had issued Circular on 13/11/1986 (Ann.1), wherein it was decided to grant benefit of notional fixation to an employee, who had been reinstated without back wages by an award of the Labour Court. In support of his submission, he has relied upon judgment of this Court in Sri Sanatan Dharm Shastri Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3196/2003, decided on 12.03.2013], the judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Harpal Singh vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. [C.W.P. No.4825/2010, decided on 06.09.2012], judgment of the Delhi High Court in Mahabir Prasad vs. Delhi Transport Corporation [W.P. (C) No.2216/2014, decided on 23.07.2014], and the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Baldev Singh vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala & Anr. [AIR 1987 SC 104].

4) Per contra, the learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that petitioner is not entitled to any benefit of increments as the Labour Court has not given any actual benefit to the petitioner from the date of reinstatement and thus, no arrear was also permissible to the petitioner. The petitioner has already been granted the benefit of continuity in service without back wages.

5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6) It is apparent form perusal of the record that the petitioner was charged with having obtained fare from the passengers without issuance of tickets to them. This charge is rather grave and it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in several pronouncements that the only punishment, which is proper for such misconduct, is dismissal from service and any punishment less than dismissal would be grossly inadequate. Reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Bajrang Lal [2014(4) SCC 693], wherein, while dealing with a similar case of Conductor, who was found carrying passengers without tickets, held that only punishment in case of proved corruption is dismissal from service. It was held in paras 21 to 23 hereunder:

“21. As regards the question of disproportionate punishment is concerned, the issue is no more res-integra. In U.P.SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma [(2010) 6 SCC 555], it was held as under:

“22. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari [AIR 1996 SC 1249], this Court held as under:

(SCC p. 715, para 4)

“4. … In a case of such nature-indeed, in cases involving corruption-there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant.”

Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam [AIR 1975