JUDGMENT Hon’ble Bharati Sapru, J.—This petition has been filed by the petitioner against an order of termination passed by the respondent No. 1 on 22.4.1997 by which the petitioner who was a driver in the respondent corporation has been removed from service. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was a driver was deputed to drive bus No. 9055. On 31.3.1996 he was supposed to take the bus out which was to carry passengers but the petitioner refuses to take the bus out on the ground that the bus was not in a fit condition to be taken on the road or to carry passengers. 3. The specific plea taken by the petitioner was that the left side fork of the suspension was broken and the vehicle was not in a condition to carry passengers. 4. According to the petitioner he refused taking the bus out unless the bus was properly repaired as there was a terrible risk of an accident thereby causing loss to human life. 5. The petitioner was asked to take the bus out despite his insistence and when he refused, a charge of indiscipline was levelled against him. 6. It has come on record in the order itself that one of the officials himself found that the suspension was broken on the left side of the bus but had been tied up. This evidence was given by Prabhakar Sharma. The other evidence which was given by the member of the corporation was that the bus could have been driven. 7. For this act of indiscipline, the enquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty and the petitioner was terminated from service. 8. Having heard learned counsel for both sides and having perused the material on record, I am of the opinion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is too harsh and disproportionate for reasons that the petitioner has been terminated for one single act of so-called indiscipline. 9. Prior to this, the record does not reflect that the petitioner has ever been guilty of any ground of indiscipline. 10. 9. Prior to this, the record does not reflect that the petitioner has ever been guilty of any ground of indiscipline. 10. Insofar as the charge of indiscipline levelled against the petitioner in the case in hand, is concerned, I am of the opinion that the so-called act of indiscipline cannot be termed as an act of indiscipline because it is the part of the discipline of a driver to take vehicle out on road only he ensures that the vehicle is road worthy and fit to carry passengers and it should not in any manner pose any risk to human life. 11. In my opinion that the driver while taking a stand with regard to the broken suspension had acted prudently and had done so in the best interest of all involved and most of all passengers who would have travelled on that bus. The driver in my opinion had taken due caution in the matter and had not indulged in any dereliction of duty nor had caused any harm or loss to the corporation by his decision. Should any accident had taken place then too, the blame would have been fixed on the driver. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the driver acted with due caution and prudence. The punishment imposed by way of the impugned order, is, therefore excessive and too harsh, which is, accordingly, set aside. 13. The writ petition is allowed as above. No costs. ——————