( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the order and judgment dated 24th July, 2007 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein. ( 2 ) THE appellant while working with Delhi Transport Corporation as a Conductor was charge-sheeted for a mis-conduct as per charges drawn and intimated. The appellant submitted his reply but the respondent-Corporation was not satisfied. Consequently, a regular departmental proceeding was drawn up. On completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the appellant was guilty of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings recorded by the enquiry Officer and passed an order removing the appellant from service. ( 3 ) BEING aggrieved, the appellant raised a dispute, which was referred to and decided by the Labour Court. During the course of the aforesaid proceeding, a preliminary issue was framed on 11th September, 2001 to the effect that whether or not a proper and fair domestic enquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Labour Court on going through the records held that enquiry, which was held against the appellant was fair and justified and that the same did not call for any interference. On merits also after going through the evidence and upon dealing with various contentions raised, the learned Labour Court held that the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly in accordance with principles of natural justice in which the appellant-workman was allowed full opportunity to defend himself. It was held that the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were based on the evidence. Accordingly, an award was passed against the appellant in favour of the respondent-Management. ( 4 ) BEING aggrieved, a writ petition was filed, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 24. 7. 2007, as against which the present appeal is filed on which we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that the disciplinary authority had passed an order for removal of the appellant from service without giving any reasons. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the order passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of which it is submitted that the said order being illegal and without jurisdiction should be set aside and quashed. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the order passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of which it is submitted that the said order being illegal and without jurisdiction should be set aside and quashed. The second submission, which is raised is that the appellant was allowed time to deposit the shortfall amount and the same was deposited. Therefore, the appellant is protected under the provisions of Section 15-A of DRTA (Conditions of Appointment and Service Regulations, 1952 ). ( 6 ) THE appellant was working as a Conductor with the respondent-Management. He was lastly attached to Dr. Ambedkar Nagar Depot and was allotted a locker by the management for keeping tickets, bag and complaint book etc. He was lastly performing his duties as a conductor till 26th September, 1993. Thereafter, he was directed by the Depot Manager to work at Mehrauli Terminal Booth to collect entry fee. Consequently, the workman-appellant kept a block of tickets along with bag, complaint book and other items in the locker. He had rendered upto date account of sale of tickets till 26. 9. 1993 and deposited cash with the cashier of the depot. The said locker of the appellant-workman was checked by the respondent-Management in his absence on 06. 9. 1994, when it was found that there was a shortage of amount of Rs. 2,458/ -. The value of tickets were found to be short in the locker during checking on 6th September, 1994. Consequently, the appellant was directed to deposit the said amount of rs. 2,458/- by letter dated 9th September, 1994. Pursuant to the said order, workman-appellant deposited Rs. 2,458/- with the cashier on 10th September, 1994. He was issued charge sheet on 10th September, 1994 on the allegations that there was shortage of tickets in his locker to the tune of Rs. 2,458/- as per check conducted on 6th September, 1994. ( 7 ) IT was contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that certain documents were called for by the appellant but were not supplied to him and therefore, the impugned order is required to be set aside and quashed. Similar contention for violation of principles of natural justice in conducting enquiry and also non-supply of documents was raised before the learned Labour court, who has extensively dealt with the said contention. Similar contention for violation of principles of natural justice in conducting enquiry and also non-supply of documents was raised before the learned Labour court, who has extensively dealt with the said contention. In paragraph 15 of the judgment, the learned Labour Court has specifically held that the allegations about non-supply of documents and list of witnesses were without substance. Labour Court has held that the appellant had called for certain documents without specifying the documents which he required. It was also held that the request of the appellant in calling for supply of documents without specifying the same was vague and unfounded. Another contention that no assistance of co-worker was given to the appellant-workman was also considered by the Labour Court and the said allegation was without any merit as the Enquiry officer had asked the appellant in the very beginning whether he wanted assistance of a co-worker to which he replied in negative. Labour Court held that the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly in accordance with law and that there was no violation of the said Rules by the Enquiry Officer. ( 8 ) TO examine the contention that the order of removal was passed without recording reasons, we have considered the records and also the said order. A bare perusal of the said order would indicate that the disciplinary authority considerd the enquiry report filed by the Enquiry Officer and upon going through with the findings recorded by the enquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued by the Disciplinary Authority to the appellant by which the Disciplinary authority proposed to impose penalty of removal from service of the Corporation. The appellant submitted a representation as against the aforesaid show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority. It was recored in the order dated 9th April, 1996 that the Disciplinary Authority had examined the entire record and thereafter, agreed with the opinion, which was expressed by him earlier while issuing the show cause notice and after being so satisfied, penalty of removal from service was being imposed on the appellant-workman. ( 9 ) IN our considered opinion, the aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary authority cannot be set aside and quashed on the ground that it is devoid of reasons. ( 10 ) THE contention that the appellant had deposited shortfall of Rs. ( 9 ) IN our considered opinion, the aforesaid order passed by the Disciplinary authority cannot be set aside and quashed on the ground that it is devoid of reasons. ( 10 ) THE contention that the appellant had deposited shortfall of Rs. 2,548/-within the time allowed by the respondent, and after deposit of the aforesaid amount, there was no mis-conduct, belies by the fact that on the date when checking was carried out by the Checking staff, it was found that the value of tickets amounting to Rs. 2,458/- was short in the locker. The said amount was directed to be deposited and the same was thereafter deposited. But the aforesaid deposit would not in any manner condone the mis-conduct, on the basis of which charge sheet was issued. We agree with the findings of the learned single Judge in this regard. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is mis-conceived. ( 11 ) WE find no merit in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.