JUDGMENT B. N. Sapru, J. - This writ petition is directed against a decision of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal No. I, U. P., Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 617 (II) of 1977 dated 1-7-1978. 2. The petitioner, Anokhey Lal, was a Conductor of Bus No. 5891 in U. P. Government Roadways. On 16-6-1964 the bus was checked by Sri S. K. Gupta who was an Inspector in the U. P. Government Roadways. He found that one and a half passengers were travelling without ticket ai d made a report to the Additional General Manager of the U. P. Government Roadways, Agra. Thereupon departmental proceedings were drawn up against the petitioner. As a result of the enquiry, the petitioner was removed from service. 3. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner filed a suit which eventually came to the Service Tribunal and had been dismissed. The Tribunal found that the petitioner was permitted a lady passenger to travel without ticket and had also allowed a child to travel without ticket. It further found that the petitioner had realised the fare of these tickets but had not credited them to the U. P. Government Roadways. of the children - Dismissal set aside. 4. The defence of the petitioner was that these were two boys under 12 travelling in the bus and he bad instead of issuing two half tickets issued one ticket to them. 5. With regard to the third child, the petitioner said that he was informed that the child was below three years of age and, therefore, he let him travel in the bus without charge. The petitioner asserted that the Inspector estimated the age of the two elder boys as above 12 years and accordingly issued one ticket for them The Inspector also estimated the age of the child travelling with the lady passenger at above three years and issued a half ticket to her. Thus, one and a half ticket was found short by the Inspector. 6. There is nothing on record to show the ages of the two boys or the child travelling with the lady passenger were as estimated by the Inspector. If the petitioners version was correct, the petitioner could not have realised anything in excess from the passengers travelling in the bus. 6. There is nothing on record to show the ages of the two boys or the child travelling with the lady passenger were as estimated by the Inspector. If the petitioners version was correct, the petitioner could not have realised anything in excess from the passengers travelling in the bus. The position is that there was nothing on record to rebut the statement of the petitioner in regard to the ages of the children. 7. Removal from service is a very serious punishment and should not be inflicted unless there is clear proof of an offence being committed by a Government servant. 8. Apart from this, the Services Tribunal has misconstrued the defence of the petitioner. The Tribunal found that the petitioner had not explained the fact that the lady passenger was without ticket and further the fact that small child with the lady was without ticket That was not the gravamen of the charge in the charge-sheet. The charge-sheet merely recited that one and a half passengers were travelling without ticket whose money has been realised by the petitioner. 9. As find that there is no evidence in support of the charge-sheet framed against the petitioner, the impugned order of dismissal cannot stand 10. In the result, the writ petition succeeds, the impugned order of dismissal dated 24-8-1968 (Annexurs VIII to the writ petition) and the order of the the Services Tribunal dated 1-7-1978 (Annexure 9 to the writ petition) are quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to his costs from the respondents No. 2 and 3.