JUDGMENT :

Satish Chandra Sharma, J.

1. W.A.No.1552 of 2018 I arising out off order dated 07.09.2018 passed in W.P.No.19105 of 2008.

2. The facts of the case reveal that the Respondent/employee before this Court was appointed as a Conductor in 1986 and while discharging his duties on 21.07.2005, he was subjected to surprise check. Undisputedly, he was found indulged in case and ticket irregularities (misappropriation of Government money). A charge sheet was issued and thereafter a detailed enquiry took place in the matter and finally an order was passed on 24.05.2006 inflicting punishing of removal.

3. The Respondent/employee did prefer and appeal and the same was rejected on 27.09.2006 and thereafter, the employee preferred a petition under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and the same was registered as I.D. No. 81 of 2006. The labour Court, after minutely scanning the entire evidence, arrived at a conclusion that the workman is not entitled for any relief specially keeping in view the misappropriation and has dismissed the petition preferred by the workman under Section 2A(2) of the Act of 1947 by award dated 10.07.2007 declining the interfere with the punishment order. Thereafter, writ petition was preferred and the learned Single Judge in paras 6 and 7 has held as under :

“6. This Court having considered the submission made by the parties and the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner, is of the considered view that the punishment of removal imposed by the Respondent-Corporation is very disproportionate and the Labour Court ought to have examined the case of the petitioner taking into consideration the fact that this is the only incident in the entire career of the petitioner, and it ought to have interfered with the punishment of removal by applying the proportionality theory and at least, the Labour Court ought to have directed the Respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into the service as fresh conductor. Since the punishment of removal is shockingly disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner, this Court feels that ends of justice would be met if the Respondent-Corporation is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the Respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as fresh conductor, subject to medical fitness, without continuity of service, without back wages and other attendant benefits. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.”

4. The learned Single Judge, even though it was a case of misappropriation, has held that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of the employee.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued before this Court that in case of misappropriation there cannot be other punishment except dismissal or removal and to support his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Suresh Chand Sharma, (2010) 6 SCC 555 and APSRTC, represented by its Managing Director and others vs. Labour Court-II, Hyderabad and another, W.P.No.13683 of 2000, dt. 29/10/2012.

6. This Court has carefully gone through the aforesaid judgments. Undisputedly, the present case is relating to cash and ticket irregularities. The enquiry was held as per the statutory provisions governing the field and the Labour Court did not find any defect in the enquiry and also declined to interfere with the order of punishment while delivering the award dtd. 10/7/2007. The learned Single Judge by merely observing that the punishment is disproportionately shocking to the guilt of the delinquent has set aside the order of removal.

7. The Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (supra) in paragraphs 14 to 17, 20, 23 and 24 has held as under :

"14. The High Court dealt with the matter in a most cryptic manner. Relevant/main part of the judg