Order.- This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, calling for the records relating to the order of the Government contained in its G.O.Ms. No. 3606, Public Works, dated 14th November, 1957, as confirmed by G.O. Ms. No. 2057, P.W.D., dated 25th July, 1958, compulsorily retiring the petitioner from service as Officiating Executive Engineer and to quash the same. The petitioner, who is a graduate in Engineering, entered service under the Government of Madras on 3rd February, 1930, as a Supervisor in the Public Works Department. In course of time, he rose up to the position of an Executive Engineer. On 1st August, 1951, he was appointed as Project Engineer, and placed in exclusive charge of the Manimuthar Project in the Tirunelveli District. Later, towards the end of the year 1952, the project was placed under a Superintending Engineer with two Executive Engineers, subordinate to him each in charge of a separate Division. The petitioner was put in charge of one of those Divisions. On 30th September, 1954, he was transferred to Vaigai Project in Madurai District. In the meantime, in March, 1953, the Government received some complaints which contained charges of corruption against the petitioner. Certain enquiries and investigations were then made and finding that there was a case for fuller enquiry the Government forwarded the case to the Tribunal, constituted under the Madras Civil Services Disciplianry Tribunal Rules, 1948. The Tribunal by its order date 3rd September, 1954, framed two charges against the petitioner, and they were duly communicated to him. The first of the charges related to alleged receipt of illegal gratification in cash and kind from six persons whose names were set out therein. The second charge which is more relevant for the present case was in these terms: “That actuated by corrupt and dishonest and improper motives with intent to mislead your superiors and the Government, you failed to disclose the acquisition and possession of valuable property, viz., Bangalow No. 12-A, Babu Rajendra Prasad Road, West Mambalam, Madras-17, worth about Rs. The second charge which is more relevant for the present case was in these terms: “That actuated by corrupt and dishonest and improper motives with intent to mislead your superiors and the Government, you failed to disclose the acquisition and possession of valuable property, viz., Bangalow No. 12-A, Babu Rajendra Prasad Road, West Mambalam, Madras-17, worth about Rs. 50,000 standing in the name of your wife, Srimathi Vedavalli Ammal, and thereby contravened the provisions of Rule 10 of the Government Servants Conduct Rules, and in your landed property statement for 1954, dated 14th January, 1954, you merely made mention of a house without garden as belonging to your wife without disclosing the location of the same”. The two charges were enquired into by the Tribunal on 1st and 2nd November, 1954- Six witnesses were examined in support of the 1st charge against the petitioner, but the apparent tenor of the evidence showed that it was not sufficient to sustain the charges made. The Director of Prosecutions, who was in charge of the case against the petitioner, applied for, and obtained an adjournment of the case for about three weeks, with a view evidently to communicate the lack of progress in the case and to obtain fresh instructions from the Government. By that time, the Government were placed in possession of a few more facts by the Investigating Officers. This led to the framing of three additional charges against the petitioner which was done by the Tribunal on 21st December, 1954, of which the first two alone are important. They run thus:- “Additional Charge No. 1.- That actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of his position and authority as Executive Engineer of the Manimuthar Project and with intent to appropriate for his own use, he, on or about 22nd November, 1952, caused delivery of 27 A.C. corrugated sheets worth Rs. They run thus:- “Additional Charge No. 1.- That actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of his position and authority as Executive Engineer of the Manimuthar Project and with intent to appropriate for his own use, he, on or about 22nd November, 1952, caused delivery of 27 A.C. corrugated sheets worth Rs. 540, out of a consignment of 102 A.C. corrugated sheets despatched from the Public Works Workshops and Stores, Madras, to Manimuthar Project, at his Bangalow in Babu Rajendra Prasad Road, West Mambalam, Madras, and that with a view to cover the consequent shortage, he suggested to Sri Paul Dorairaj, Junior Engineer, Stores No. II Section, Stores and Transport Sub-Division, Manimuthar Project, and Sri D. K. Nagarajan, Assistant Engineer, Stores, to account for the 102 A.C. sheet as having been received and to write off the shortgage of 27 A.C. sheets as having cracked and broken in transit, and on their refusal to comply with his suggestion, he returned those 27 A.C. corrugated sheets on 6th April, 1953, through Departmental lorry M.S.Z. 6618 by fraudulently debiting the cost of transport to the Government”. “Additional Charge No. 2.- That actuated by corrupt motive and in abuse of his position and authority, in 1953, he made use of Government Pick Up Van M.D.T. 2128 for his private visit with his family to Varkala, Trivandram, and other places on a pleasure trip and drew 14 gallons of petrol from out of the Government stock of the Manimuthar Project” . The 3rd charge which was later held not proved related to the petitioner utilising the services of a fitter employed in the project for making certain household articles utilising the Government material for the same. The additional charges were duly communicated to the petitioner, and an enquiry followed thereon. The Tribunal held that the first of the charges concerning receipt of illegal gratification from certain contractors had not been proved: so also the third additional charge, i.e., that relating to the utilisation of the fitter employed in the project and the utilisation of Government property for making household utensils. But it held that the other 3 charges had been made out. At the end of the finding the Tribunal expressed its view that the petitioner’s conduct was such that he was ‘neither fit to occupy any responsible post, nor was it safe for the Government to retain him in service. But it held that the other 3 charges had been made out. At the end of the finding the Tribunal expressed its view that the petitioner’s conduct was such that he was ‘neither fit to occupy any responsible post, nor was it safe for the Government to retain him in service. On a consideration of the report, the Government came to the tentative conclusion that the finding of the Tribunal was correct, and that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired from service by way of punishment. The Government thereupon issued a notice to the petitioner on 13th June, 1956 intimating its provisional conclusion and calling upon him to show cause why the proposed punishment should not be inflicted. Annexed to the notice was a copy of the proceedings of the Tribunal including its report. The petitioner submitted his representations. On the receipt of the representations, the Government forwarded the entire record to the Madras Public Service Commission for its opinion. By his letter dated 2nd April, 1957, the Secretary of the Madras Public Service Commission sent the following communication to the Government: "I am to say that the commission is generally in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal. The accused officer’s reply to the show cause notice is unconvincing and the commission agrees with the remarks of the Chief Engineer (P.W.D.) on that reply- Vide Chief Engineer’s Letter No. C-1/2591/53/53, dated 7th November, 1956. The prosecution evidence as a whole leaves in one’s mind a strong suspicion of corrupt practices on the part the accused officer, although some of the individual instances may not stand the test of strict legal proof as in a criminal case. According to the principles laid down in G.O. No. 902, Public (Services) dated 28th May, 1938, dismissal or removal would be justified in this case. The proposed penalty of compulsory retirement errs on the side of leniency, but it serves the purpose (viz., that the accused officer should no longer be retained in service) well enough. The commission agrees that, in all the circumstances of the case, it is enough to impose that penalty. The commission advises accordingly " The Government then considered the entire matter in the light of the petitioner’s representations and the Commission’s report: it came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired from service and passed G.O. Ms. 3606 dated 14th November, 1957, imposing the punishment. The commission advises accordingly " The Government then considered the entire matter in the light of the petitioner’s representations and the Commission’s report: it came to the conclusion that the petitioner should be compulsorily retired from service and passed G.O. Ms. 3606 dated 14th November, 1957, imposing the punishment. The findings on the basis of which the Government imposed the punishment is a matter on which different views are possible. On the one hand, it is contended that it was a mere suspicion and not proof of any misconduct, while, on the other, it is said that it amounted to an implicit acceptance of the findings of the Tribunal. It is, therefore, necessary to set out the relevant portions of the order, which runs thus:- " 4. The Government have carefully considered the explanation submitted by the accused officer in consultation with the Madras Public Service Commission. After perusing the records of the case, the Madras Public Service Commission has expressed the opinion that the accused officer’s explanation is unconvincing and that the prosecution evidence as a whole leaves in one’s mind a strong suspicion of corrupt practices on the part of the accused officer although some of the individual instances may not stand the test of strict legal proof as in a criminal case. The Madras Public Service Commission considers that removal or dismissal from service of the accused officer will be justified in the present case, and that the proposed penalty of compulsory retirement from service errs on the side of leniency and that it, however, serves the purposes, viz., that the accused officer should no longer be retained in the service of the Government. The Commission has therefore agreed that, in the present case, it is enough to impose the penalty of compoulsory retirement from service on the delinquent Officer. The Government agree with the Madras Public Service Commission. 5. While the charges referred to above were under the consideration of the Government the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (General) brought to the notice of the Government certain additional items of irregularities alleged to have been committed by the same Officer, Sri A. R. Srinivasan, during his term of office as Executive Engineer, Manimuthar Project. 5. While the charges referred to above were under the consideration of the Government the Chief Engineer, P.W.D. (General) brought to the notice of the Government certain additional items of irregularities alleged to have been committed by the same Officer, Sri A. R. Srinivasan, during his term of office as Executive Engineer, Manimuthar Project. The main allegation was that he made certain unauthorised payments for extra loads and lifts to contractors and job workers in the Manimuthar Project, where they were not due, and that a part of these payments were undoubtedly unauthorised aid to contractors in contravention of paragraph 315 of the Madras Public Works Department Code. As the allegation was a serious one, the Government ordered that the matter should be enquired into in detail and deputed Sri J. G. Abraham, Superintending Engineer, Madras Circle for conducting the enquiry. The Government also ordered in G.O. Ms. 1211 Public Works, dated 18th March 1957, that Sri A. R. Srinivasan should be placed under suspension forthwith pending enquiry into a disposal of the further charges against him. Sri A. R. Srinivasan was accordingly relieved from the charge of the Salem Division on 23rd March, 1957 afternoon. The Government have decided that the officer should be retired compulsorily on the basis of the charges already proved before the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings and that if it is later found necessary to impose further punishment on the basis of the present enquiry into the further charges against the officer, then the question of reducing the pension due to the officer for unsatisfactory work may be considered by Government. The Governor of Madras accordingly directs that Sri A. R. Srinivasan, Officiating Executive Engineer, P.W.D., be compulsorily retired from service from 23rd March, 1957 afternoon, the date on which he was relieved from the charge of the Salem Division and placed under suspension". The petitioner then appealed to the Governor. The appeal was rejected. G.O. Ms. No. 2057 dated 25th July, 1958 contains the order, the material portion of which states: "The Governor of Madras has gone through the relevant papers on the subject and has observed that the three charges held to be proved against him by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings are sufficiently grave calling for the imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement from service under the Government". The validity of the aforesaid orders is challenged in this petition. The validity of the aforesaid orders is challenged in this petition. It cannot be disputed that the procedure adopted in relation to the enquiry into the charges of misconduct against the petitioner conformed strictly to principles of natural justice and to the constitutional and other provisions. The only ground on which the order imposing the punishment is attacked is that it had been passed without good cause on the basis of a mere suspicion. This contention is based on the somewhat contradictory basis for the Government’s order, disclosed in paragraphs 4 and 5 of G. O. Ms. No. 3606, dated 14th November, 1957. In the former paragraph the Government accept the conclusion of the Public Service Commission. Does it mean that they too rest their conclusion on suspicion ? In the latter paragraph it is stated that the punishment was decided on the basis of charges proved before the Tribunal. Does this mean that the Government had accepted the findings of the Tribunal notwithstanding the advice of the Public Service Commission that such evidence as there is in the case, which could be said to be legal, raised only a suspicion ? The resolution of those doubts presents no little difficulty. It cannot be disputed that where there is no proof but a mere suspicion of misconduct on the part of a Government servant, the Government would have no good cause to punish him. The learned Additional Government Pleader frankly conceded that this Court would have jurisdiction to quash an order of the Government imposing a penalty on its servant if its finding of misconduct was rested on mere suspicion and not legal proof. In Kuppuswami v. State of Madras1, a Bench of this Court held that a mere suspicion could not take the place of proof to satisfy the requirements of "good and sufficient reason" and that in the absence of good and sufficient reason the Government would have no jurisdiction to inflict any punishment under the Madras Civil Service, Classification Control, etc., Rules. In W. A. No. 54 of 1956, G. Sundaram v. The State of Madras (Home Department) it was taken as a well established principle of law that all enquiries whether judicial, departmental or otherwise into the conduct of individual officers of the Government should conform to certain standards, one such standard being that the conclusion arrived by the authority conducting the enquiry should be based on the evidence, and that the charges in such a case being in the nature of a criminal prosecution, should be proved beyond reasonable doubt. It becomes, therefore, necessary to consider what precisely are the reasons which induced the Government to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. It needs no saying that, although the actual enquiry was delegated to the Tribunal the Government is the ultimate authority and its conclusion alone is material. What is relevant to consider is whether the Government acted on legal proof or on the basis of a suspicion. The Government is not bound to accept the finding of the Tribunal constituted under the Madras Civil Service Disciplinary Rules, 1948: a fortiori the reasoning adopted by the latter for its conclusion unless accepted by the Government can have no force; Equally so is any advice or opinion given by the Public Service Commission. Neither its reasoning nor its conclusion is binding on the Government who can either adopt or accept or reject the same. As stated already, the Government intimated the petitioner on 13th May, 1956, that they had provisionally accepted the findings of the Tribunal. That was merely a tentative acceptance, it being open to them to take a different view of the case altogether and come to a fresh conclusion after considering the further representation of the officer concerned and of the expert advice of the Public Service Commission. The material point to be considered is what were the grounds on which the authority ultimately acted ? Before considering that question, it is necessary to refer to three circumstances: (1) that the petitioner pleaded innocence, (2) that the Tribunal found on evidence that three out of the five charges laid against the petitioner had been made out, and (3) that the Public Service Commission went into the matter fully and, after analysing the evidence with respect to the 3 charges held proved by the Tribunal, gave its own view of the evidence. From the terms of the letter of the Secretary of the Madras Public Service Commission, which I have set out earlier, it is not possible to find whether it found there was any acceptable legal evidence in support of any of the charges. It no doubt states that the Commission was generally in agreement with the findings of the Tribunal, but it later whittles down that general statement by specifically stating on what basis those findings could be supported, namely, (1) some of the individual instances may not stand the test of strict legal proof and (2) that in regard to other charges the evidence leads only to a strong suspicion. The opinion so expressed cannot be said to be clear or unambiguous but there can be no doubt that what in the opinion of the Commission justified the 3 charges found against the petitioner was strong suspicion and not legal proof. There is thus a contradiction between the Tribunal and the Commission. From the report of the former it is clear that it held that there was evidence to support 3 of the 5 charges. The communication of the latter to the Government would show that the result of the evidence led only to a strong suspicion against the petitioner. It becomes necessary then to ascertain which of the two views found acceptance with the Government. In paragraph 4 of the G. O. Ms. No. 3606, dated 14th November, 1957, the Government unreservedly accept the view of the Public Service Commission. I had doubts whether the concurrence expressed by the Government with the view of the Public Service Commission should be held to relate only to the question whether compulsory retirement or dismissal was the proper punishment in the case and not to the view of the Commission as to what the evidence in the case amounted to. Paragraph 5 of the order refers to the Government having taken action on the basis of the charges already proved before the Tribunal. That does not, however, clearly indicate whether the Government accepted the findings of the Tribunal in preference to the assessment of the evidence by the Public Service Commission. The paragraph is primarily concerned with other charges that came to light subsequently, the suspension of the officer pending investigation of those charges and reserving further action thereon in case it became necessary. The paragraph is primarily concerned with other charges that came to light subsequently, the suspension of the officer pending investigation of those charges and reserving further action thereon in case it became necessary. In the context the reference to the punishment of compulsory retirement appears to be more a record of an antecedent decision than one which is made as a result of the reasons contained in paragraph 5. The reference to the “charges proved before the Tribunal” was possibly intended as descriptive of the charges which induced them to take action rather than an acceptance of the findings of the Tribunal in respect of those charges. In G. O. Ms. No. 2057, dated 23rd July, 1958, there is reference to the 3 charges proved before the Tribunal as justifying the punishment. This is merely a subsequent interpretation of G. O. Ms. No. 3606 and it is by no means clear that the statement was not merely made as descriptive of the charges which ultimately led to the punishment. What remains to be considered is the terms of paragraph 4 of the Government Order. Its narrative portion consists of two parts: (1) the opinion of the Public Service Commission and (2) the proper punishment to be meted out to the officer: can it be said that when at the end of the paragraph the Government expressed its agreement with the Commission it was only in regard to the 2nd portion and not to the first ? Prima facie it would be an inappropriate use of the word "agreement" if it were to relate only to the question of punishment contained in the latter part of paragraph 4. It will be remembered that even at the time of its provisional conclusion the Government had decided that compulsory retirement was the proper punishment in the circumstances and it had later intimated its view to the Public Service Commission. That body, however, was of the opinion that a more drastic punishment was required: but later on it agreed with the Government’s proposal. The agreement was, therefore, by the Commission to what the Government proposed. There was no need for any further agreement on the part of the Government in the matter of punishment. To say, therefore, that the Government agreed with the Public Service Commission’s agreement to the Government’s proposal would be otiose, if not meaningless. The agreement was, therefore, by the Commission to what the Government proposed. There was no need for any further agreement on the part of the Government in the matter of punishment. To say, therefore, that the Government agreed with the Public Service Commission’s agreement to the Government’s proposal would be otiose, if not meaningless. The agreement of the Government with the Commission should, therefore, be in regard to the view of the Commission as to the effect of the evidence in the case. The Commission’s appraisal of the evidence will have no utility unless the Government agreed with it. It must, therefore, follow that the Government too shared the view of the Commission that there was no legal proof in regard to individual instances and the evidence as a whole left in its mind only a strong suspicion of the petitioner having been guilty of the 3 charges. It is not open to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to consider whether the view of the evidence is justified or not. It may be that a substantial portion of evidence which the Tribunal accepted as credible did not find favour with the Government, and what remained fell short of legal proof raising a suspicion. The learned Additional Government Pleader did not justify the order of the Government on any such basis. When once it is found that the Government acted only on suspicion, the disciplinary action taken against the petitioner, being based on such suspicion, cannot be sustained as one within its jurisdiction. Rule nisi made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. P.R.N.------------- Petition allowed. Rule nisi made absolute.