JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioner was a driver in Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (from hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) and was posted at Haldwani Depot, Nainital in the year 2007 when he was asked by his superior authorities to bring a new bus from Jaipur to Dehradun Depot. While the petitioner was bringing this newly fitted bus on his way from Jaipur to Dehradun, he permitted a group of 31 passengers unauthorisedly to board this bus and the allegation further was that the petitioner had charged money from these passengers, which was discovered when the surprise inspection was made on the bus by the Inspection team on 15.02.2007 a few kilometres ahead of Chutmalpur on the way to Dehradun. Thereafter, a report was prepared. The petitioner was charge-sheeted and a departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner. 2. There are five charges against the petitioner. All the charges were primarily that the petitioner in an unauthorised manner had led certain passengers to board the bus from whom he had taken money, which was clearly for his private gain, for which no tickets were issued by him. The valid fare from “Chutmalpur” to “Dehradun”, according to the Inspection team, was Rs.1,125/- and Rs.900/- were found in the pocket of the petitioner as a driver of the bus. The remaining money was also deposited by the petitioner later on with the department. These are all admitted facts. 3. The defence of the petitioner in the departmental inquiry was that the bus was not plying on a regular route as a stage carriage. The only duty assigned to the petitioner as a driver was to get the newly fitted vehicle from Jaipur to Dehradun, a duty which he was performing when the incident happened. The petitioner admitted that certain passengers were found in the bus at the time of surprise inspection but to that charge, the defence of the petitioner was that these passengers were “Kawariyas”, (i.e. pilgrims who generally make a trip to Haridwar during “Sawan” season) has not been disputed in the inquiry, nor the fact that Kawariyas were actually on the route during this particular period. The only objection which has been expressed by the department was that there was no reason for them to board a bus from Chutmalpur to Dehradun, as generally the Kawariyas would be going towards Haridwar from where they generally fetch the water from the Ganges. 4. This reasoning, however, overlooks a possibility that these Kawariyas were travelling on their way to Roorkee or Dehradun, from Haridwar while making their return journey to their respective villages. 5. All the same, this Court is not going into this aspect, for the simple reason that it is again an admitted fact that the bus was not on a regular service route. There was admittedly that there was no conductor on the bus. No tickets were liable to be issued to these alleged passengers. There has been no statement of any of these “Kawariyas” taken by the Inspection team and this has already been one of the objections raised during the inquiry, which makes the charge against the petitioner totally suspect, though as far as this incident is concerned, the same is very much accepted by the petitioner. As far as the fact that the petitioner had permitted 31 Kawariyas to board the bus is concerned, the same is established by admission. Hence, the only charge which could have been established against the petitioner was that he in an unauthorised manner had permitted passengers to board the bus, which was not on a regular route and where he was in no position to take fare from the passengers. But the fact that the petitioner had caused any kind of illegal gratification to himself or any pecuniary loss to the department has not been established. The mistake on the part of the petitioner though is definitely in the nature of negligence and may possibly be misconduct but the conduct of the petitioner is not of a nature, which may entail maximum punishment of removal from service. Moreover, there are certain technical flaws in the departmental inquiry as well inasmuch as there is no statement of any of the witnesses i.e. those passengers who had boarded the bus. There is no statement to that effect that the passengers had actually given money to the petitioner, which casts doubt on the severity of the charges levelled against the petitioner so as far as the illegal gratification and transaction of money is concerned. 6. There is no statement to that effect that the passengers had actually given money to the petitioner, which casts doubt on the severity of the charges levelled against the petitioner so as far as the illegal gratification and transaction of money is concerned. 6. In view thereof, not all the charges against the petitioner can be said to be legally sustainable or established. The negligence of the petitioner, which borders on misconduct, however, remains. Consequently, the punishment given to the petitioner cannot be sustained. The writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 19.03.2008, 29.07.2008 and 15.06.2010 are hereby set aside. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service without any back wages. The period of service between 2007 to the joining of the petitioner in service shall be treated to be continuous for all other purposes, except that he shall not be given any salary for this period and shall also be deprived of the annual increment during this period, which shall now be the reduced quantum of punishment as per this order. 7. It is made clear that since the petitioner was a driver and has to join his service, it is directed that before giving the charge of driver to the petitioner, the department shall ascertain the driving skills of the petitioner as well as his driving licence. In case, it is found that the petitioner is not upto the standard of a driver, the respondent department shall consider placing the petitioner to any other equal job or post, in the department.