Judgment : Present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing or setting aside the dismissal order (Annexure-4). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was working as Conductor in Bus No.1198, Godda- Ranchi route, under the respondent- Bihar State Road Transport Corporation, Patna. The said bus was inspected by the Central Flying Squad and it was found that the petitioner was carrying four unbooked passengers, out of twenty-four passengers. He was charge sheeted and accordingly, inquiry was conducted and punishment of dismissal was inflicted upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner preferred CWJC No.5945 of 1994 before the Patna High Court and the Patna High Court was pleased to quash the dismissal order passed against the petitioner and directed the petitioner to make a representation to the Managing Director within a period of one month from the date of the order. Respondent-authorities were also directed to consider the representation made by the petitioner by speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said representation. Accordingly, the petitioner made representation and the respondent-authorities passed a fresh order by making some modification here and there but the dismissal order was maintained by the respondent-authorities. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that second show-cause notice was not given to the petitioner and the relevant documents were also not supplied to the petitioner and therefore, the manner in which order of dismissal was passed, is in clear contravention of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawn the attention of the Court to the inquiry report and submitted that findings were given in favour of the petitioner, however, disciplinary authority failed to consider the inquiry report and passed the dismissal order without proper application of mind and the punishment, imposed by the respondent-authorities is also disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. 3. Respondent has filed its counter-affidavit, stating inter alia that the order passed by the appellate authority is a reasoned one and is based on the inquiry report and show-cause thereto by the petitioner is in consonance with the principles of natural justice. 3. Respondent has filed its counter-affidavit, stating inter alia that the order passed by the appellate authority is a reasoned one and is based on the inquiry report and show-cause thereto by the petitioner is in consonance with the principles of natural justice. In para-11 of the counter-affidavit, respondents has submitted that it has been held by the Apex Court in U.P.S.R.T.C.-versus- Mahendra Nath Tiwari that “ non-issuance of ticket by bus conductor to lone passenger is a grave misconduct” and as such, order passed by the appellate authority confirming the dismissal of the petitioner is in accordance with law. 4. Considering the aforesaid rival submissions and on perusal of the papers, it appears that petitioner was charge sheeted as it was found in the inspection carried by the Central Flying Squad on 16.10.1988 that the petitioner carrying four unbooked passengers, out of twenty-four passengers and thereafter, inquiry was conducted in respect of the said charge. From perusal of the charge, which is produced vide Annexure-1, it appears that petitioner has given explanation in respect of show-cause notice. Findings of the inquiry report, which is produced vide Annexure-2, also indicates that findings are recorded in favour of the petitioner and the conduct of the petitioner was reported in the inquiry report as “one of the irregularities was committed by the petitioner”. However, the disciplinary authority without affording reasonable opportunity passed an order inflicting punishment of dismissal from the services. 5. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred CWJC No.5945 of 1994 before the Patna High Court and the Patna High Court has passed the order which reads under, “16. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that non service of a copy of the enquiry report in this case where the report itself contains vascillating observations caused prejudice to the petitioner, This Court cannot therefore sustain the order of dismissal which is at Annexure-4, and the same is therefore quashed. But as a result of quashing of Annexure-4 this Court does not reinstate the petitioner, nor does this Court direct the respondent Corporation to pay the petitioner his entire back wages. But this Court gives the following directions, in the facts of this case, I. Since enquiry report has already been served upon the petitioner, there is no requirement of further service of the enquiry report. But this Court gives the following directions, in the facts of this case, I. Since enquiry report has already been served upon the petitioner, there is no requirement of further service of the enquiry report. The petitioner is directed to make a representation to the Managing Director (respondent no.3) within a period of one month from today. II. Such representation of the petitioner must be considered and disposed of by a speaking order by respondent no.3 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said representation. III. The question of petitioner's reinstatement/payment of back wages will depend upon the outcome of the said order to be passed by the Respondent no.3”. 6. In the light of the direction, issued by the Patna High Court, petitioner submitted representation before the respondent-authorities and thereafter, respondent-authorities passed the order dated 11.12.1999. It appears that representation submitted by the petitioner was treated as an appeal by the respondents and order was passed by the respondent-authorities, confirming the order of dismissal passed previously, by holding that the conduct of the petitioner amounts to breach of trust and therefore, quantum of punishment decided earlier needs no interference. 7. I find substance in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity as no second show-cause notice, before inflicting punishment by the disciplinary authority, was given to the petitioner. Moreover, the quantum of punishment, prima facie, appears to be disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. It appears that on previous occasion, the order of dismissal was challenged before the Patna High Court and the Patna High Court was pleased to quash / set aside the dismissal order and gave the direction to re-consider the case on the representation with the intention that respondent-authorities will fairly consider the case of the petitioner based on the findings given in the inquiry report but it appears that respondent-authorities, while considering the representation, which was treated as an appeal, failed to consider the findings given in the inquiry report and confirmed the order of punishment. It also appears that requisite procedure, which was required to be followed before taking decision about the quantum of punishment to be inflicted upon, is also not followed in the present case and the order passed by the respondent-authorities appears to be clear contravention of principles of natural justice. It also appears that requisite procedure, which was required to be followed before taking decision about the quantum of punishment to be inflicted upon, is also not followed in the present case and the order passed by the respondent-authorities appears to be clear contravention of principles of natural justice. Moreover it also appears that the factors required to be considered before inflicting any major penalty such as dismissal from services, which amounts to economic death of a person were not considered by the authority concerned. 8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the order passed by the respondent-authorities dated 11.12.1999 is ordered to be quashed and set aside . Respondent-authorities are directed to pass fresh order after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner by observing principle of natural justice. The respondent-authorities are also directed to consider the various factors at the time of deciding proportion of penalty to be inflicted upon over and above the findings given by the inquiry officer in its report. The respondent-authorities are directed to complete this exercise within a period of six months from the date of this order. 9. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.