statemcnts lhat they have boarded the top of thc bus u,hrle thc bus s,as in slorv motior-rq.hen the shecp cattle was crossing bcfore the bus u'ithout the icnou,lcdqe of the petitioner as u,eil as cinver of the brrs and fi-rrlher ;t.rtcct thitt thcy I'rave not paid ticket farc rrnd coliected tl.ie tici<ets fr-rirn the petitloners.'ll-re learned counsel for thc petrtroncr rrglrtly contenclcd that the resirondents' Corporation $.itlroLlt consiciering thc stat.rments given by the passcnge rs and witlrc-rut properll'considering the explanation submitted by the petltioner lo the charge shr:et, passerl thc impugned order agerinst the doctrinc of proportionalrry basing on the report submitted by tht: Enquiry Ofliccr irnposcd purrishnrcnt of '"r,ithholding annual grade increments for a pcrrorl oI lr{o ve'us with cumulative effect. The responclents' Corporation has failccl to cslablish that the act of thc pctitioncr: was intcntional L r not issuing the tickcts to the passengers and he plal.ed a fratrd Lo caLrsc colossal financial loss to the rcspondcnts' Corporatiorr exchequer but it amounts to only negligence on the p:rrt of the petiticrler. lll such circurnstances, the respondents'Corporation ought not io have imposed punishment; namely, stoppage of increments Ibr a pcr-iod of t.,o years with cumulative effcct,q,hich, in thc considcr,:d opinion of this Court is a major punishment.
