D. R. CHAUDHARY, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner, a bus conductor of U. P. Stale Road Transport Corporation (for short corporation) was allotted Bus No. URT 9824 running from Mathura to Deeg Koshi, The bus was intercepted on 3. 12. 1989 by the checking staff. During the checking, 8 passengers were found travelling without ticket. On the report submitted by the checking staff, the petitioner was placed under suspension on 6. 12. 1989. Charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 12. 12. 1989 to which the petitioner submitted his reply. The inquiry officer submitted his report on 23. 12. 1990. Annexure-II to the writ petition. On the basis of the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with show cause notice on 16. 3. 1990, copy of which is Annexure-III to the writ petition. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 2. 6. 1990 vide Annexure-IV to the writ petition. Disciplinary Authority by means of an order dated 18. 4. 1990 (Annexure-V) dismissed the petitioner from service of the Corporation. Against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed representation (Annexure-VI) before the Regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport corporation. The representation filed by the petitioner came to be rejected by means of the order dated 26. 12. 1990. Annexure-VII to the writ petition. The petitioner has challenged the aforestated two orders dated 18. 4. 1990 and 26. 12. 1990 by means of the present writ petition. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT Corporation has filed counter-affidavit to which the petitioner filed rejoinder-affidavit. ( 3 ) HEARD Sri Satya Prakash Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri D. K. S. Rathore, the learned counsel representing the respondent Corporation. ( 4 ) IT is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have passed the orders impugned without looking into the material facts submitted by the petitioner and the orders impugned are attended with vice of non-application of mind. It is further argued that the petitioner cannot incur the risk of dismissal from service for meagre amount of Rs. 18 only and the explanation submitted by the petitioner in this regard has not been taken into consideration by the authorities. It is further argued that the petitioner cannot incur the risk of dismissal from service for meagre amount of Rs. 18 only and the explanation submitted by the petitioner in this regard has not been taken into consideration by the authorities. Sri S. P. Singh lastly submitted that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh and is disproportionate with the gravity of the charge which may be set aside and be substituted by a minor punishment so that the petitioner as well as his family members be saved from being adversely affected by the punishment of dismissal which carries the civil consequences. ( 5 ) SRI D. K. S. Rathore, on the other hand submitted that there is no illegality or infirmity in the punishment awarded to the petitioner as the same being based on the charge of serious misconduct and the quantum of amount in no way reduces the gravity of the charges and consequential punishment. However, he fairly conceded that the punishment of dismissal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is too harsh and he will be having no objection if the punishment of dismissal is substituted by some minor punishment. ( 6 ) HAVING considered the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fair inclination of Sri D. K. S. Rathore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the punishment of dismissal is excessive. I found myself persuaded to hold that the punishment of dismissal from service being too harsh, deserves to be replaced by minor punishment. ( 7 ) IN view of the above, the respondents are directed to replace the punishment of dismissal from service by awarding some minor punishment. The respondents shall reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity within a week from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. However, with regard to the payment of back wages, the respondents shall be at liberty to take decision within a period of two months. ( 8 ) THE writ petition is allowed in terms as above. ( 9 ) COST easy. .