JUDGMENT : Patra, J. - This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying for the issue of an appropriate writ or direction quashing the order dated 7-5-1964 passed by the Chief Commercial Superintendent, South Eastern Railway, Calcutta removing the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner was working as a commercial clerk, South Eastern Railway and was posted at Kharagpur. On 13-12-1960 he was detailed for duty at Booking Counter No. 3 of the Kharagpur Railway Station and his duty hours were from 1 A.M. to 9 A.M. that day. One Dhruba Charan Nilamani, a native of Kendrapara Road arrived at Kharagpur by the Puri-Howrah express on 13-12-1960 at about 4.30 A.M. It is alleged that at about 8 A.M. he went to Booking Counter No. 3 when the Petitioner was on duty and asked for three third class tickets to Ahmedabad. The Petitioner is alleged to have told him that tickets to Ahmedabad were not available and persuaded him to purchase tickets up to Kalyan representing to him that Kalyan is very near Ahmedabad. Nilamani believed the Petitioner and paid full fays for three printed card tickets bearing Nos. 00150, 00151 and 00152 at the rate of Rs. 34.17 naye paise per ticket and boarded the 30 Up HowrahBombay Express leaving Kharagpur station at midday. Nilamani being an old employee of New Swadesh Mills, Ahmedabad had travelled very often between Kendrapara and Ahmedabad by the normal route, namely, Kharagpur and Bhusaval, and as usual, he alighted at Bhusaval the next day with a view to take the connecting train to Ahmedabad. When he presented the tickets at the gate, he was told that Kalyan was farther up and that he should continue his journey by the same train. Nilmani, however, remonsrated that he was bound for Ahmedabad and that the Booking Clerk at Kharagpur told him that as tickets for Ahmedabad were not available he might take tickets up to Kalyan which is a few stations away from Ahmedabad. The tickets were confiscated by the Head Ticket Collector and a certificate for refund of the untravelled portion of the journey, from Bhusaval to Kalyan was given to Nilamani who thereafter purcbased tickets for Ahmedabad and after reaching Ahmedabad preferred a claim. The tickets were confiscated by the Head Ticket Collector and a certificate for refund of the untravelled portion of the journey, from Bhusaval to Kalyan was given to Nilamani who thereafter purcbased tickets for Ahmedabad and after reaching Ahmedabad preferred a claim. This is how the matter came to the notice of the Railway authorities who on verification found from the summary of the Foreign Passenger Classification for the month of December, 1960 submitted by the Kharagpur Booking Office to the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer, South Eastern Railway that the three third class tickets referred to above were shown as having been sold at the confessional rates applicable to privilege Ticket Orders and that a sum of Rs. 34.17 np. representing one-third of the full fare of the three tickets was deposited with the Railway. No P.I.O. (Privilege Ticket Order) was however submitted along with the F.P.C. (Foreign Passenger Classification) in support of the sale of the three third class tickets. It is alleged that the Petitioner misappropriated the balance of Rs. 68 34 np. TI e further allegation against the Petitioner is that he approached the Pass Clerk one Sri Chandran with an application said to have been submitted by Hamal Itim Shall of the Kharagpur Goods Shed and requested for issue of a Privilege Ticket Order in favour of three adult members in the privilege account of Itim Shall and accordingly a P.I.O. bearing No. 909964 dated 14-12-1960 was issued against the account of Itim Shall in favour of three adult members for journey from Kharagpur to Kalyan and it is alleged that this has been done by the Petitioner with a view to cover up the aforesaid misappropriation of Rs. 68.34 np. 2. On the aforesaid allegations, charges were drawn up against the Petitioner and were duly enquised into by Sri F.M.D. Souza, Assistant Commercial Superintendent, Kharagpur who found after enquiry that the charges were established against the Petitioner. The Chief Commercial Superintendent after considering the enquiry report held that the charges were established and called upon the Petitioner to show cause why be should not be removed from service (Annexure C). The Petitioner in his explanation (Annexure D) denied having issued the three tickets referred to above and stated that he was not on duty at the counter when the tickets were issued to Nilmani. The Petitioner in his explanation (Annexure D) denied having issued the three tickets referred to above and stated that he was not on duty at the counter when the tickets were issued to Nilmani. He denied having ever approached the Pass clerk Sri Chandran to obtain a privilege ticket order in the name of Itim Shall. He contended that there is absolutely no evidence to support the findings of the enquiry Officer that it is the Petitioner who had issued the tickets and after collecting full fare from the passenger deposited only one-third of the fare and misappropriated the balance, and that to cover up the misdeed he subsequently approached the Pass Clerk and obtained from him a privilege ticket order against the account of Itim Shall. After considering the explanation of the Petitioner, the Chief Commercial Superintendent passed the impugned order dated 7-5-1964 (Annexure E) removing him from service. The Petitioner then appealed to the General Manager, South Eastern Railway and the Minister In charge of Railways (Annexure F) but by order dated 26-10-1965 (Annexure G) his appeals were dismissed. 3. The main ground on which the validity of the impugned order is challenged by the Petitioner is that there is absolutely no evidence to establish the charges framed against him and that certain important documents which would have established his innocence and the production of which had been asked for by him during enquiry had not been produced. 4. The law is when settled that in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as a Court of Appeal over the decisions of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant. It is only concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an allthority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice fife not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the allthority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fais decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by is relevant considerations. The High Court can also interfere where the conclusion reached by the departmental allthority on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion. The High Court can also interfere where the conclusion is not supported by any evidence at all. The limited point therefore for consideration in this case is whether there is no evidence to support the finding that the Petitioner is guilty of the charges or whether the evidence, if any, is of such nature that on the basis thereof no reasonable person could have arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner is guilty. But as observed by this Lordships of the Supreme Court in Union of India (UOI) Vs. H.C. Goel even though technical rules which govern the trials in Criminal Courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, yet the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules and that mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. 5. It is established during enquiry that on 13-12-1900, the Petitioner Narayan Mahapatro was detailed for duty at Booking Counter No. 3 from 1 A.M. to 9 A M. and that at about 9-30 A.M. he was relieved by Sri K.S. Sastry, another Booking Clerk who remained on duty till 5 P.M. Since the passenger Dhruba Nilmani arrived at Kharagpur at about 5 A.M. that day by the down Puri Express and left by the 30 Up Bombay Express at 11-50 hours, it is obvious that the three tickets to him had been sold either by the Petitioner or by Sri K.S. Sastry. Sri Sastry who relieved the Petitioner at about 9 A.M. on 13-12-1960 has narrated how he had taken charge of Counter No. 3 from the Petitioner. He said that the Petitioner entered the total amount of the cash collected by him in the Daily Trains Cash Book (D.T.C.) and also entered the closing number of each ticket that was sold during the turn of his duty and thereafter the Petitioner made over the cash to the Chief Booking Clerk. He further stated that it is the D.T.C. which can show which booking clerk has sold any particular ticket. It is therefore that throughout the enquiry the Petitioner had been demanding the production of the D.T.C. relating to 13-12-1960. It is in evidence that in March 1961 which is more then 3 months after the incident, the D.T.C. relating to 13-12-1960 had been handled by the Chief Booking Clerk and by Sri S.K. Mukherjee, another Booking Clerk of that office. This appears from the evidence of the Chief Booking Clerk Sri S.K. Das. But when on 30-4-1961 the Vigilance Inspector wanted to refer to this book it was found missing. Thus, the most valuable evidence which could have shown as to which booking clerk had actually issued the three tickets to Kalyan on 13-12-1960 has not been made available to the delinquent. Whenever tickets are issued at confessional rate on the basis of a privilege ticket order, the procedure is that when the booking clerk makes over the cash to the Chief Booking clerk along with the Daily Trains Cash Book, he also encloses thereto the privilege ticket order on the basis of which confessional fare had been collected from the passenger concerned. Admittedly, whoever might have been the booking clerk who issued the tickets on 13-12-1960, no P.I.O. was submitted along with the cash and the Daily Trains Cash Book. That means, the allthority on the basis of which short collection had been made was not handed over to the Chief Booking Clerk. The enquiry Officer has not considered bow, in the circumstances, the Chief Booking Clerk could accept the short collection from the Booking Clerk. That means, the allthority on the basis of which short collection had been made was not handed over to the Chief Booking Clerk. The enquiry Officer has not considered bow, in the circumstances, the Chief Booking Clerk could accept the short collection from the Booking Clerk. The evidence therefore is quite consistent with the hypothesis that the Booking Clerk whether it is the Petitioner or it is Sri Sastry remitted the full value of the three tickets to the Chief Booking Clerk and it is the Chief Booking Clerk who thereafter in the statement submitted by him to the Chief Deputy Accounts Officer showed against these three tickets that confessional fares bad been collected. 6. It may be stated here that proceedings were started not only against the Petitioner, but also against Sri K.S. Sastry and Sri S.K. Mukherjee, the two other Booking Clerks and Sri S.K. Das, the Chief Booking Clerk. The charge against Sri K.S. Sastry is identical with the charge framed against the Petitioner Sri N. Mohapatra. The charge against Sri S.K. Mukherjee and the Chief Booking Clerk Sri S.K. Das both of whom had handled the Dally Trains Cash Book dated 13-12-1960 in March 1961 is that they connived with other staff of the Kharagpur Booking Office to destroy documentary evidence with a view to screen the offenders from legal punishment. In fact, both Sri Mukherjee and Sri Das were found guilty of negligence and having connived with the other two delinquents to destroy documentary evidence. As already stated, the evidence so far discussed does not show that it is the Petitioner who sold the three tickets. 7. The other evidence on the basis of which the Petitioner is held guilty consists of (i) the statement of Dhruba Nilmani that he purcbased the tickets at about, 8 A.M. and (ii) tile statement of Sri A. Chandran, the Pass Clerk. We would first deal with the evidence of Sri. A. Chandran. He stated that he is well-acquainted with Sri S.K. Mukherjee, Sri K.S. Sastry and Sri N. Mohapatra and that they were occasionally going to him for passes. We would first deal with the evidence of Sri. A. Chandran. He stated that he is well-acquainted with Sri S.K. Mukherjee, Sri K.S. Sastry and Sri N. Mohapatra and that they were occasionally going to him for passes. It is stated that on 14-12.1960 he issued a privilege ticket order concession No. 969964 in favour of the two sons and the brother of Hamal Itim Shall of Kharagpur Goods Shed and that one of the Booking Clerks, namely, Mukherjee, Mohapatra and Sastry had come to him with Itim Shall's application. To fl. question whether the Petitioner Sri Mohapatra had given the P.I.O. application bearing the thumb impression of Him Shall, Sri Chandran replied that Mohapatra might have given the application. The enquiry Officer therefore committed an error of record in holding that Sri Chandran's statement is that Sri Mohapatra had approached him with the P.I.O. application and this confisms that Sri Mohapatra had committed the crime. We are then left only with the statement of Dhruba Nilamani that he purchased the tickets at 8 A.M. on 13th December, 1960. He admits that he had not seen the watch before going to the Booking Office. There is nothing on record to show whether any attempt was made to get the Petitioner identified by this witness. It is, therefore, appears to us that it is highly arbitrary to fix the guilt on the Petitioner on the basis of a statement made by this witness that he purchased the tickets at 8 A.M. when he himself admits that he had not referred to the watch when he went to purchase the tickets. If we remember that the Petitioner's duty came to an end at 9 A.M., the danger of accepting Nilmani's statement and hazing the findings of guilt of the Petitioner only on the basis of that statement becomes obvious. In the circumstances, the non-production of the Daily Trains Cash Book relating to 13th December, 1960, which admittedly is the best evidence relating to this controversial point assumes considerable importance. 8. Assuming for a moment that it is the Petitioner who sold the three tickets to Nilmani, there is no evidence to show that he did not hand over the full fare relating to these tickets to the Chief Booking Clerk. 8. Assuming for a moment that it is the Petitioner who sold the three tickets to Nilmani, there is no evidence to show that he did not hand over the full fare relating to these tickets to the Chief Booking Clerk. The charge against him is not that he sold the tickets but that having sold the tickets and collected the full fare from Nilmani he credited only one-third of the total fare on the basis that there are covered by P.I.O. Admittedly, no P.I.O. was handed over by the Petitioner to the Chief Booking Clerk on the 13th. In the circumstances, it is not explained how the Chief Booking Clerk could accept only one-third of the fare covered by the three tickets without there being a privilage ticket order to support it. Sri S.K. Das was not the Chief Booking Clerk at, Kharagpur Station on 13-12-1960 The person who was the Chief Booking Clerk on that date was examined. There is absolutely no evidence to show that the Petitioner handed over only one-third of the fare relating to these three tickets to the Chief Booking Clerk. It is true that in the account which the Chief Booking Clerk sent to the Deputy Chief Accounts Officer it is shown that one-third of the fare was collected against these three tickets. But this is not in the band-writing of the Petitioner. We are, therefore, convinced that it is a case where there is absolutely no evidence to sustain the charge laid against the Petitioner on this ground alone, the order of removal of the Petitioner is liable to be quashed. 9. In view of our finding above, it is unnecessary to deal with the further point of law raised by the Petitioner that although rules 1709 and 1732 of the Railway Establishment Code provided for affording a personal hearing to a delinquent at the enquiry stage and the appellate stag e respectively he was admittedly not given such personal bearing as admitted in paragraph 17 of the Counter affidavit and that therefore the enquiry is vitiated. 10. In the result, we would allow this petition and quash the impugned order removing the Petitioner from service. The Petitioner is entitled to recover Rs. 200- towards cost from the opposite party. Barman, C.J. 11. I agree. Final Result : Allowed