THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16516 OF 2000 DATED 30TH AUGUST, 2011 BETWEEN G.V.R.Murthy …Petitioner And The Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam rep. by its Presiding Officer and others. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.16516 OF 2000 ORDER: Aggrieved by the Award dated 28.06.1993 in I.D.No.194 of 1990 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam, to the extent it denied him back wages, seniority and attendant benefits, the workman in the said I.D. is before this Court. The petitioner entered the service of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) as a Conductor in the year 1978. He was removed from service under orders dated 13.12.1984 in connection with certain cash and ticket irregularities allegedly committed by him which were established upon due enquiry. His appeal against this punishment resulted in failure on 12.03.1987. Aggrieved thereby, he approached the Labour Court by way of the subject I.D. under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The gravamen of the charges framed against the petitioner was that he had failed to issue tickets to 10 passengers though he collected the fare from them. As the petitioner admitted the validity of the domestic enquiry, the Labour Court examined the material placed on record and found that the punishment imposed was unduly harsh taking into account the smallness of the amount misappropriated, i.e, Rs.5.60ps. It accordingly directed reinstatement of the petitioner in service while denying him back wages, seniority and attendant benefits. Significantly, the APSRTC did not choose to challenge the Award in so far as the relief granted is concerned. It is now well settled that in cases involving misappropriation of funds the doctrine of proportionality would have no role to play. Whatever be the quantum of the amount misappropriated, the inevitable result would be loss of confidence of the employer in such an employee. The observations of the Supreme Court in REGIONAL MANAGER, UPSRTC v. HOTI LAL[1] in this regard are apposite: “10. ……… If the charged employee holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it would not be proper to deal with the matter leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable. ………” In such circumstances, the Labour Court was rather liberal in allowing the I.D. even to the limited extent of directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service. He would therefore not be entitled to any further relief. The Writ Petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 30TH AUGUST, 2011. VGSR/PGS [1] (2003) 3 SCC 605