Judgment 1. This petitioner, bus conductor, working under the Bihar State Road Transport Corporation has been dismissed from service on the order dated 6.9.2004, contained in Annexure-7 to this writ application. 2. The matter relates to 2nd April, 1993. The petitioner was the conductor of the bus in question which had 17 passengers. Within 2 K.Ms. of the bus covering the distance, a raiding party carried out a check on the bus in question. it is stated that out of 17 passengers 12 were found to have valid tickets and five persons were found without any ticket at all. The raiding party issued tickets to those five passengers and collected a revenue of Rs. 15/-. Soon after this incident, an explanation was sought from the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondents in their wisdom to hold an enquiry, initiated a departmental inquiry. According to the petitioner, nothing came to be done in this regard till the year 2003. It was only in the year 2003 that the petitioner was asked to appear before the Enquiry Officer and according to him a slipshod enquiry was carried out and based on an enquiry report, which did not find the petitioner guilty categorically, the disciplinary authority decided to dismiss him from service. 3. Petitioners contention against the order of dismissal is that he did not get a fair opportunity to defend himself. Since the matter was kept pending for more than ten years, therefore, serious prejudice was caused to him in terms of witness, evidence and material which were there on record. He further submits that he was not even provided with the documentary evidence on which the respondents relied as such, if at all. 4. Another limb of argument is that even taking the enquiry report as a whole, the findings are not such that an order of dismissal could be passed against him which is surely shocking to the conscience and disproportionate to the charges. 5. The respondents, however, in the counter affidavit have taken a stand that they had issued notice to the petitioner on several occasions in the last ten years but since the petitioner chose not to appear before the Enquiry Officer, the matter did not receive any attention. 5. The respondents, however, in the counter affidavit have taken a stand that they had issued notice to the petitioner on several occasions in the last ten years but since the petitioner chose not to appear before the Enquiry Officer, the matter did not receive any attention. It was only in 2003 that the matter was taken up seriously and thereafter the enquiry was held and based on the enquiry report and the second show cause, the order of punishment has been passed. According to the respondents, looking at the position in which the petitioner was placed and also keeping in mind the commercial interest and revenue of the respondents they have taken a decision to dismiss the petitioner. The order, therefore, is in consonance with the allegation and finding. 6. The Court has had an opportunity to glance to the enquiry report which has been brought on record by the respondents. This is not with the object of reappraisal of evidence as such but to satisfy the judicial conscience that there is a finding recorded as such against the petitioner, based on evidence. The conclusion of the Enquiry Officer in this regard is that if the raiding party had not conducted the raid at the relevant time, the petitioner could have caused loss of revenue by not issuing tickets to five passengers. The Enquiry Officer records that the petitioner would have succeeded in causing loss of revenue to the Corporation but only because of the decisive intervention of the raiding party this loss was prevented. The conclusion of the Enquiry Officer with regard to the charges against the petitioner is an obvious inference but what is the evidence to show that the petitioner had the mens rea of not collecting the money from those five passengers and accounting for the same? Admittedly, out of 17 passengers 12 were issued tickets. No evidence is there to suggest that the petitioner had collected the money from those five passengers and not accounted for the same. There is no dispute that the five passengers at the time of raid which was within 2 K.Ms. of the journey of the bus in question were not issued tickets but that by itself may not be sufficient to hold that the petitioner had an intention to cause loss of revenue to the Corporation. 7. It is true that a sum of Rs. of the journey of the bus in question were not issued tickets but that by itself may not be sufficient to hold that the petitioner had an intention to cause loss of revenue to the Corporation. 7. It is true that a sum of Rs. 15/- may not be an issue in the present case but when a person is held guilty of misconduct then it is not the surmise which shall befit the punishment of dismissal but it shall be based on concrete and valid evidence in this regard. 8. Keeping in view the finding and the evidence which has come against the petitioner as well as the charges, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent Corporation has been excessively harsh in dismissing the petitioner at the fag end of his career. Another aspect which this Court would like to take note of is that the disciplinary authority itself in annexure-7 has taken note of this fact that in the relevant period, i.e., 1988 to 1993 this was the first opportunity that the allegation of this kind had been brought against the petitioner. The respondents also accepted the position that the petitioner was one of the persons who had always given the highest revenue to the Corporation. If this was the service record of the petitioner, then he surely deserves a punishment in consonance with the allegation. This Court holds that the order of punishment of dismissal which has been passed against the petitioner in the above noted circumstances is not only shocking to the conscience but also disproportionate to the allegation and the evidence which is available on record. 9. The order of dismissal, contained in Annexure-7 is, accordingly, quashed. Liberty, however, is given to the respondents to reconsider the order in the light of the observations which this Court has made in the earlier part of the order. 10. This writ application, therefore, stands allowed to the extent indicated above.