Arijit Pasayat, J.

In this appeal the only point raised by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the employer) is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment awarded to the respondent no. 1- Hoti Lal (hereinafter referred to as the employee) .

2. The factual background in a nutshell is as follows :

The employee was appointed as a Conductor on 1.6.1976. On 9.7.1988 he as on duty in Bus No. UGG-168. While checking was done by the Assistant Regional Manager, it was found that 16 persons were without ticket. Even after realising fare from the passengers no ticket had been issued up to the time of checking. When the inspecting officer started checking, the employee hurriedly tried to issue tickets. Old tickets were found in his possession with the intent to use them again. Several tickets of various denominations were also recovered. These according to the authorities amounted to dereliction of duty, violation of Employees Conduct Code and misappropriation of employers money. The employee was placed under suspension on 23.7.1988. A charge-sheet containing, inter alia, aforesaid allegations was served on 16.8.1988 and finally on 30.3.1991 the order of termination was passed. An appeal was filed before the prescribed Appellate Authority which was dismissed by order dated 23.6.1991. The order of termination and the appellate order was questioned in a writ petition No. 4535 (S/S) of 1991. The same was dismissed with the conclusions that after full-fledged inquiry conducted by a retired District Judge, the employee was found guilty of misconduct and on consideration of materials the charges were fully established. The matter was carried in appeal before the Division Bench by the employee and by the impugned judgment the Division Bench set aside the order of termination leaving it open to the employer to award any punishment, but not of removal or termination or compulsory retirement. The conclusions of the Division Bench are, inter alia, as follows :

xxx xxx xxx xxx

In the instant case the petitioner was found to be carrying on ticketless passengers and certain old and used tickets were recovered from his possession but it was asserted before the learned Honble the Single Judge that after issuing of the charge sheet no oral enquiry proceeded and the petitioner was punished. It was submitted that the punishment is too severe and harsh in proportion to the alleged misconduct in which the State suffered only a loss of Rs. 16/-.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the punishment awarded to the petitioner is not commensurate with the gravity of the charge, hence the writ petition deserves to be allowed".

xxx xxx xxx

3. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the employer submitted that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the quantum of punishment. Both learned Single Judge and the Division Bench found that the charges were proved after an elaborate and fair inquiry. The allegations were of very serious nature and even without indicating any reason as to why the punishment was not held to be proper, the directions have been given for imposing lesser penalty. If the three penalties which have been directed to be not excluded are kept out only minor penalties can be imposed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that in the employers own case in case of another conductor, almost under identical circumstances a similar direction was upheld. Reliance was placed on U.P. State Road Transport Corpn, and others vs. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others (2000 (3) SCC 450) .

5. The scope of interference with the punishment awarded has been dealt with by this Court in several cases. A reference to applicable observations in some of these cases would suffice.

6. In B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India and others (1995 (6) SCC 749) it was held as follows :

"The next question is whether the Tribunal was j