S. B. MAJMUDAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with articles 14 and 16 thereof the petitioner who is a railway servant working in the Western Railway belonging to the Union of India respondent No. 1 herein challenges the appellate order passed in departmental proceedings by the financial Adviser and Chief Accounts officer Western Railway Churchgate Bombay respondent No. 4 herein whereby the respondent has converted penalty of removal from service inflicted on the petitioner to one reversion to the lower post of clerk Grade II in the scale of Rs. 260-440 (1) until he is found fit by the competent authority for being considered for the higher post in the scale of Rs. 330-560 (R ). ( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the grievance of the petitions it is necessary to glance through a few relevant facts leading to this petition. The petitioner was appointed in the Western Railway as Shroff in the department of pay and cash in the scale of Rs. 260-400 with effect from 8-2-1971 by the Chief Cashier Western Railway. The petitioner thereafter passed the departmental examination and was promoted to the post of cashier in the scale of Rs. 330-480 by the Chief Cashier in the year 1977. The petition went on working as a cashier thereafter all throughout till the time he was involved in an incident which took place on Chandlodia railway station situated on the railway line between Sabarmati and Viramgam. That resulted in the departmental proceedings which ultimately culminated into the impugned order of reversion of the petitioner. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was working as a cashier at Baroda on 23-11-1979. On that day he was asked to work vice Mr. U. C. Verma who was disbursing cashier and who was working on Baroda Viramgam line at the relevant time. As Mr. Verma reported sick the work for disbursing payment to railway employees on scheduled dates at Viramgam and other places came to be entrusted to the petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner proceeded to Viramgam on 24-11-1979 by 47 down which I am told leaves Baroda in the early morning and reaches Viramgam in the afternoon. The said train which is a passenger train is popularly known as Viramgam passenger. Accordingly the petitioner proceeded to Viramgam on 24-11-1979 by 47 down which I am told leaves Baroda in the early morning and reaches Viramgam in the afternoon. The said train which is a passenger train is popularly known as Viramgam passenger. The aforesaid passenger train on its Journey to Viramgam has to pass through Ahmedabad Sabarmati and its next halt is at Chandlodia station which is located on the railway line between Sabarmati and Viramgam. The case of the petitioner is that when the aforesaid passenger train in which was travelling on 24 1979 stopped at Ahmedabad one Mr. G. K. Mishra Assistant Station Master Chandlodia station contacted the petitioner and asked him to make payment of arrears bills pertaining to 24 employees of Chandlodia station. These arrears bills pertained to arrears are under the Award of the Railway Tribunal. The concerned arrears bills were totalling Rs. 34049-55. The petitioner was quite new to that section. According to the petitioner as per the rules laid down by the railway administ ration any payment amounting to more than Rs. 500/ per recipient had to be made in presence of a gazetted officer. Further the train was to stop at Chandlodia station for only two minutes and there was no sufficient time available for the petitioner to make disbursement to all the members of the Chandlodia station staff during that short time. Further no gazetted officer was available to witness payment. Under these circumstances according to the petitioner he informed Mr. Mishra Assistant Master Chandlodia that he would make payment of arrears of the Railway Tribunal award to the concerned members of Chandlodia station staff on his return journey from Viramgam on 27 when the petitioner would be able to arrange for presence of some gazetted officer at Chandlodia station. Thus the petitioner requested Mr. Mishra to permit him to postpone payment of arrears to Chandlodia railway staff and in the meantime the petitioner was to make payment of regular salary to staff members at other stations falling on the line as per the scheduled programme fixed earlier. The petitioners case is that as per the railway rules if the gazetted officer is not available an alternative is provided. As per that alternative pre-intimation to each individual employee quoting the amount of pay ment by way of a written authority from the superior officer at the station is required. The petitioners case is that as per the railway rules if the gazetted officer is not available an alternative is provided. As per that alternative pre-intimation to each individual employee quoting the amount of pay ment by way of a written authority from the superior officer at the station is required. According to the petitioner even on 27 1979 no gazetted officer was available at Chandlodia station but the alter native course was followed as the Divisional Paymaster had intimated previously to all employees about the actual amounts to be paid to them and had sent an inspector to witness the payment. Under these circumstances the petitioner made payment to all the employees at Chandlodia railway station on 27-11-1979 in accordance with the railway rules. The case of the petitioner further is that the aforesaid course adopted by the petitioner enraged. Mr. Mishra who with a view to harassing the petitioner collected group of his men at Chandlodia station and at their instance detained the Viramgam passenger on 24 11-1979 first by prohibiting the Assistant Station master from giving the signal and thereby instigating certain class IV employees to squat in front of the engine of Viramgam passenger train 47 down in which the petitioner was proceeding on duty as paying cashier to Viramgam. It is the further case of the petitioner that he was summo ned on control phone at Chandlodia by certain officers of the railway and he thereupon apprised the officer on phone about his stand on the situation and convinced him. The petitioner was again summoned by some other officers of the railway including senior divisional accounts officer but according to him the message of senior divisional accounts officer was not communicated to him by the station staff Chandlodia with the result that the petitioner could not contact him and other railway officers. The petitioners case further is that the persons who were agitating and squatting in front of the engine ultimately realised mistake and withdrew from the railway track and it is thereafter that Viramgam passenger was permitted to resume it onward journey to Viramgam. However in the process the train got detained at Chand- lodia for quite some time. Ultimately it arrived at Viramgam on 24 late in the afternoon. Thereafter the petitioner arranged for payment of salary to the railway staff members at Viramgam. However in the process the train got detained at Chand- lodia for quite some time. Ultimately it arrived at Viramgam on 24 late in the afternoon. Thereafter the petitioner arranged for payment of salary to the railway staff members at Viramgam. On that very day the petitioner sent a telegram to the appropriate autho- rities at Baroda for arranging presence of a gazetted officer at Chandlodia railway station so that the petitioner could arrange for payment of arrears Award dues to the railway employees at Chandlodia on 27-11-1979 as required under the relevant rules and procedure. On 25 the petitioner arranged payment of regular salary to the staff between Ambli road and Viramgam as per his schedule. On 27 the petitioner also arranged payment to the staff of Kharaghoda station. Then on 27-11-1979 the petitioner arranged payment of arrears bills to the railway staff at Chandlodia on his return journey to Baroda by 42 up which is a passenger train which leaves Viram in the afternoon and reaches Baroda at night and is popularly known as Baroda passenger on its return journey. ( 4 ) IT is in the aforesaid circumstances that a charge-sheet came to be served on the petitioner on 8 4-1980 levelling certain charges against the petitioner centering round the incident that happened at Chandlodia station while the petitioner was travelling by Viramgam passenger on 24-11-1979 and when the said train got detained at the instance of agitating staff members of Chandlodia railway station who had detained the train unauthorisedly and illegally. I will have occasion to refer to these various charges in details in later part of this judgment. But for the present it will be sufficient to note that all these charges pertained to the very same incident that happened at Chandlodia railway station as stated above. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultimately the inquiry officer submitted his report on 22-4-1981 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and recommended penalty of removal from service against the petitioner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ultimately the inquiry officer submitted his report on 22-4-1981 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and recommended penalty of removal from service against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority being the senior divisional accounts officer Western railway Baroda respondent No. 3 herein accepted the said report of the inquiry officer and imposed penalty of removal from railway service on the petitioner as per rule 6 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 The aforesaid order of the third respondent is at annexure Q to the petition. The said order was challenged in appeal by the petitioner as per relevant appellate rules. The petitioner submitted his appeal on 6-8-1981 to the Financial Adviser and Chief Accounts officer western railway Churchgate Bombay respondent No. 4 herein. As noted earlier the 4th respondent accepted the appeal in part. He came to the conclusion that the findings of the disciplinary authority holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges were quite justified but the penalty of removal from railway service was considered to be harsh. Under these circumstances the 4th respondent was inclined to take a lenient and sympathetic view and accordingly directed that the petitioner be directed that the petitioner has reduced to the power post of clerkgrade II in the scale of Rs. 260-440 (R) where he will not be involved in handling of cash and his pay will not be fixed at Rs. 314. 00 until he is found fit by the cempetent authority to be considered for higher post in the grade of Rs. 330-560 (R ). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 5 ) AT this stage I must hasten to refer to one contention raised by Mr. Bhatt for the respondents which covers all the contentions raised by Mehta for the petitioner. Mr. Bhatt submitted that this court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is not sitting as court of appeal and cannot shift the evidence pertaining to each of the charges as levelled against the concerned delinquent in departmental proceedings and cannot take a contrary view as if it is a court of appeal. The aforesaid contention of Mr. The aforesaid contention of Mr. Bhatt on general principles is well sustained by series of decisions of the Supreme Court and this court. But it is not as if that judicial review is totally fore- closed in such a case. It is now well settled that if the finding arrived at by the departmental authority is totally perverse on a given charge and is such that no reasonable man duly instructed in the matter of weighing of evidence could ever have arrived at or that decision of the departmental authority is based on no evidence a case for judicial review of such finding is certainly made out. I may only refer to few on the point. The Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA V. H. C. GOEL A. I. R. 1964 S. C. 865 had an occasion to consider the question of the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when the legality of the finding reached in the departmental inquiry against a dismissed employee comes to be challenged. Gajendragadkar J. speaking for the Supreme Court in the aforesaid decision held as under :-"in dealing with a writ petition filed by public servants who have been dismissed or otherwise dealt with so as to attract Art. 311 (2) the High Court under Art. 226 has jurisdiction to enquire whether the conclusion of Government on which the impugned order of dismissal rests is not supported by any evidence at all. Although the order of dismissal which may be passed against a Government servant found guilty of misconduct can be described as an administrative order nevertheless the proceedings held against such a public servant under the statutory rule to determine whether he is guilty of the charges framed against him are in the nature of quasi-judicial proceedings and there can be little doubt that a writ of certiorari for instance. can be claimed by a public servant if he is able to satisfy the High Court that the ultimate conclusion of the Government in the said proceedings which is the basis of his dismissal is based on no evidence. " It was further held:-"it is not necessary that in order to attack the order on the ground that it is based on no evidence mala fide exercise of powers by the Government should be alleged. two infirmities are separate and distinct though conceivably. " It was further held:-"it is not necessary that in order to attack the order on the ground that it is based on no evidence mala fide exercise of powers by the Government should be alleged. two infirmities are separate and distinct though conceivably. in some cases both may be present. If it is provided that there is no evidence to support the conclu- sion of the Government a writ of certiorari will issue without further proof of mala fides. " ( 6 ) IN a later judgment of the Supreme Court in SOMNATH SAHU V. STATE OF ORISSA 1969 (3) S. C. C. 384 Ramaswamy J. speaking for the Supreme Court observed on this very question as under. "the High Court is not constituted under Article 226 of the Constitution as a court of appeal over the decision of a statutory authority hearing the appeal. Where there is some evidence which the appellate authority has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the officer was guilty of improper conduct it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on evidence. The High Court may interfere where the statutory authority has acted without or an excess of the jurisdiction or where it has committed an error apparent on the face of the record. " ( 7 ) IN CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA V. F. C. JAIN REPORTED IN A. I. R. 1969 S. C. 983 Bhargava J. speaking for the Supreme Court made the following observations. "there are two cases where the findings of a domestic tribunal like the enquiry officer dealing with disciplinary proceeding against a workman can be interfered with and these two are cases in which the findings are not based on legal evidence or are such as no reasonable person could have arrived at on the basis of the material before the Tribunal. In each of these cases the findings are treated as perverse. " A Division bench of this court consisting of P. D. Desai and D. H. Shukla JJ. had also an occasion to consider the scope of judicial review in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution vis-a-vis the findings reached by the disciplinary authority in domestic proceedings against the concerned delinquent. " A Division bench of this court consisting of P. D. Desai and D. H. Shukla JJ. had also an occasion to consider the scope of judicial review in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution vis-a-vis the findings reached by the disciplinary authority in domestic proceedings against the concerned delinquent. P. D. Desai J. speaking for the Divi sion Bench in S. I. SHARMA V. SOUTH GUJARAT UNIVERSITY 23 (1) G. L. R. 233 placing reliance on a series of Supreme Court judgment and judgments of other courts has made the following observations:"the findings of fact recorded in the course of a disciplinary inquiry unless they collateral or jurisdictional are exempt from judicial review and the court exe- writ jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over the ultimate decision based such finding and review it on merits. However there are two well known to the said rule. First the case must not be one where there is no evidence to support the findings. Secondly the ultimate decision based on such must not be perverse or unreasonable. These two concepts have affirmity with each other; indeed the no evidence principle clearly has something in common with the principle that perverse or unreasonable action is unauthorised and ultra vires. Rightly understood each phrase propounds the same test. In each of these cases there would be an error in point of law requiring the courts intervention. "proceeding further with the consideration of no evidence rule which would entitle the court exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution to interfere with the findings reached by the disciplinary authority in domestic inquiry the Division Bench speaking through P. D. Desai J. made the following pertinent observations: "the English Courts have not construed the words no evidence narrowly. The rule of no evidence is there attracted not only in cases where there is complete lack of evidence that is to say here there is not a tittle or shred of evidence but also in cases where the evidence. if any is not capable of having any probative value or on the basis of which no Tribunal could reasonably and logically come to the conclusion about the existence or non-existence of facts relevant to the determination. if any is not capable of having any probative value or on the basis of which no Tribunal could reasonably and logically come to the conclusion about the existence or non-existence of facts relevant to the determination. According to the English decisions even though a domestic tribunal may act on evidence not admissible according to legal rules in a court of law unless such evidence has some probative value in the sense mentioned above it would be a breach of natural justice and/or an error of law to found any adverse decision thereon. The no evidence rule has the same content and meaning in our country as in England. No evidence does not merely signify total dearth of evidence: evide- nce which does not reasonably support the conclusion is also comprehended within the meaning of the said expression. In other words cases where there is complete lack of evidence and cases where the evidence if any is incapable of rationally leading to the conclusion reached. are both treated on a par so far the applicability of the rule of no evidence concerned. Mere suspicion even if honestly and bona fide entertained on the basis of apparently cogent circumstances is held to be out of bounds even in domestic inquiries where the Principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocents are not punished is found to apply as much as it applies to regular criminal trials. In the ultimate analysis the test which must be applied is whether there is some material capable of having any evidential value. If not the case must be held to fall within the mischief of the rule of no evidence. " It is therefore obvious that in view of the aforesaid settled legal position this court can certainly embark upon the inquiry to the limited extent of finding out as to whether the findings reached by the disciplinary authority suffer from the vice of being arrived when there is no evidence to support such findings or whether such findings are perverse or unreasonable and therefore ultra vires the powers of the disciplinary authority. I shall deal with the submissions raised by Mr. Mehta on various charges levelled against the petitioner keeping in view the limited scope of judicial review as available to this court as per the aforesaid settled legal position. . . . . . . I shall deal with the submissions raised by Mr. Mehta on various charges levelled against the petitioner keeping in view the limited scope of judicial review as available to this court as per the aforesaid settled legal position. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charge No. 1 ( 8 ) THE first charge alleges that the petitioner on the relevant day i. e. on 24-11-1979 had travelled in the first class compartment by 47 Dn. when he was not entitled to travel by that class. Now it must be appreciated that the petitioner was on duty as disbursing cashier and was travelling by 47 Dn. known as Viramgam passenger in popular parlance from Baroda to Viramgam. He was deputising for regular disbursing cashier who was sick. These are admitted facts. It is true that in reply to the charge sheet the petitioner submitted before the inquiry officer that he had not travelled in first class compartment on 24 by 47 Dn. but had travelled by II class and for that purpose he relied upon the statements of various witnesses. The petitioners case is that he had travelled by the said train alongwith two Rakshaks (guards) namely-Hanumanprasad and Hariharrai Mishra but he had not travelled by first class as alleged against him in the first charge. The inquiry officers report at annexure R notes the contention of the petitioner in that behalf. In para 3 of the report the said contention is noted to the effect that as per the petitioner he did not travel in the first class compartment on 24-11-1979 by 47 Dn. Thereafter the inquiry officer in his report para 7 framed various issues for decision. Issue No. 2 thereof is to the effect whether the petitioner travelled by the first class by 47 Dn. on 24-11-1979 though he was not entitled to travel in that particular class. It is obvious that this issue is in sonson- ance with charge No. 1 which involves two ingredients for bringing home the said charge viz. (i) that the petitioner travelled by first class on the date in question in 47 Dn. and (ii) that was not entitled to travel in that particular class. It cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner was an employee on duty. (i) that the petitioner travelled by first class on the date in question in 47 Dn. and (ii) that was not entitled to travel in that particular class. It cannot be gainsaid that the petitioner was an employee on duty. He was entrusted with the task of carrying cash accompanied by two guards and that he was proceeding to Virarn. gam to disburse cash amounts to various employees who were entitled to receive the same. Under these circumstances merely because the petitioner is alleged to have travelled by first class would not establish any misconduct on his part. Consequently the second part of the charge rightly emphasised the allegation that the petitioner travelled by the first class even though he was not entitled to travel by first class on that day. As noted above the petitioners defence was of total denial regarding his alleged travelling by first class. It is in the background of the rival versions put forward by the department on one hand and the petitioner on the other that it becomes necessary to have a close look at the finding to which the inquiry officer on evid- ence pertaining to issue No. 2. The ultimate finding on issue No. 2 as arrived by the inquiry officer on consideration of the evidence led before him is based on various penultimate findings reached by the inquiry officer and which deserve to be reproduced verbatim at this stage. Having considered the evidence of various department Witnesses the inquiry officer in his report observed as under :"it will be observed that there is no documentary evidence in regard to Shri Chatter having travelled in 1st class compartment. Since he did not travel against reservation there is no documentary evidence in regard to Shri Chatter having travelled in second class because Shri Chatter did not have any reservation. THEREAFTER, the inquiry officer proceeds to state as under : "with a view to examine about the authenticity of the statement given during the Course of the emenquiry it is necessary to elucidate the system of travel and payment by cashier and Rakshaks by the day train for arranging payment to traffic and staff of other departments. It would also be necessary to enlighten about the system of reservation and checking by slow passenger train running during the day on Ahmedabad varamgam section. It would also be necessary to enlighten about the system of reservation and checking by slow passenger train running during the day on Ahmedabad varamgam section. The system adopted by the accounts department for arranging payments is that the cashier with his cash box locked/ travels in the 2 class compartment at a place specially reserved by the traffic officials. The cash box is chained with one of the lower berths. Two RPF Rakshaks in uniform with rifles loaded but safety valve locked at an adequate space from the bullet travel with the cashier and Rakshaks are required to travel alongwith the cash box throughout the journey. The officials of traffic departments approach the cashier for payment. "it is thereafter observed in the inquiry report as under : "47 Dn. is a slow passenger train running during the day time on Ahmedabad- Viramgam section and no conductor is provided by this train. Reservation is looked after by the guard. If there are no reservation the passengers and staff travel freely. "it is thereafter that the inquiry officer made the following observations in his report : "in this particular case Shri Chatter himself had denied that he was not travelling in lost class but he had failed to indicate regarding the place where he was travelling. There was no reservation exclusively for him i. e. cashier No. 18 (Shri Chatter) in 2nd class compartment. Since cashier and two Rakshaks are working as team their statements ill regard to not travelling in 1st class can hardly be relied upon because the whole team gets liable to be taken for unauthorised travel in a class higher than that admissible. "having thereafter considered the oral evidence of the departmental witnesses the final conclusion reached by the inquiry officer on issue No. 2 reads as under : "under the circumstances it is established that Shri Chatter was travelling in 1st class compartment by 47 Dn. on 24-11-1979. I therefore decide issue No. 2 in affirmative. " A mere glance at the aforesaid conclusion to which the inquiry officer reached shows that the only finding arrived at by the inquiry officer was to the effect that the petitioner on the day of the incident was found travelling in first class compartment by 47 Dn. That finding cannot support charge No. 1. " A mere glance at the aforesaid conclusion to which the inquiry officer reached shows that the only finding arrived at by the inquiry officer was to the effect that the petitioner on the day of the incident was found travelling in first class compartment by 47 Dn. That finding cannot support charge No. 1. As already indicated above there are two ingredi- ents which are required to be proved before charge No. 1 can be brought home to the petitioner. The first ingredient is about actual fact of the petitioners travelling by first class and the second and more important ingredient is that the petitioner was not entitled to travel by 1st class on that day. The inquiry officer s finding at the highest establishes the first ingredient that the petitioner was travelling by 47 Dn. on the day of the incident by first class But it is neither here nor there. The more important and vital question is as to whether the petitioner was not entitled to travel by first class on the day of the incident. This second and more important ingredient of charge No. 1 is not at all held proved by the inquiry officer against the petitioner. In fact no finding has been reached by the inquiry officer on this vital aspect. The admitted facts are that the petitioner was disbursing cashier on that day. He was travelling by 47 Dn. on the day of the incident as an employee on duty. Thus he was on actual railway duty at the relevant time. The inquiry officer himself has noted in his report while discussing issue No. 2 pertaining to charge No. 1 that the system adopted by the accounts department fot arranging payments is that the cashier with his cash box locked travels in the 2nd class compartment at a place specially reserved by the traffic officials. In the departmental proceedings it was nowhere alleged against the petitioner that on the day of the incident a specific place was reserved for the petitioner in the second class compartment. On the contrary the inquiry officer himself has noted that the petitioner did not travel against reservation as there is no documentary evidence against the petitioner having travelled by second class because he did not have any reservation. On the contrary the inquiry officer himself has noted that the petitioner did not travel against reservation as there is no documentary evidence against the petitioner having travelled by second class because he did not have any reservation. In view of this finding reached by the inquiry officer himself it is obvious that on the day of the incident the petitioner was not provided with any separate space specifically reserved for him in the second class. Under these circumst- ances the petitioner as a disbursing cashier being in charge of large amount of cash cannot be said to be not entitled to travel by a higher class viz. the first class for the sake of preservation and safe keeping of cash entrusted to him especially when he was on duty on that day. He was not on a pleasure trip. Consequently in the absence of any finding reached by the inquiry officer one way or the other on the question whether the petitioner was entitled to travel by first class on the day of the incident under the circumstances then existing it cannot be said that both the essential ingredients of charge No. 1 were brought home to the petitioner. Consequently on the findings reached by the inquiry officer himself on charge No. 1 it must be held that the said charge was not legally brought home to the petitioner. But even apart from the aforesaid infirmity in the inquiry officers report there are two more formidable difficulties in the way of the respondent-railway adm- inistration so far as its attempt to bring home charge No. 1 to the petitioner is concerned. ( 9 ) ONE additional difficulty in the way of the respondent railway administration on the aspect of charge No. 1 is that the petitioner in his detailed appeal memo addressed to the appellate authority who is the final authority that has passed the ultimate penalty order against the petitioner has pointed out in para 9 (2) of the memo which is at annexure S to the petition that the departmental rules provide that if the cashier on duty asks for reservation and is not provided with reservation in second class he can travel by first class to facilitate safe conduct of cash and its transaction. He has further stated that in the present case he did not travel by II class coach segregating one section of the coach as he was not given reservation though he asked for the same vide his memo dated 23s 1979. Thus the petitioner relied upon memo dated 23-11-1979 by which he had asked for reservation in II class coach for 47 Dn. and according to him as he was not granted this reservations he was entitled as per the railway rules to travel by first class as he was a cashier on duty carrying substantial amount of cash. The Inquiry officer has held that no reservation was provided in 47 Dn. on the day of the incident for the petitioner to travel by II class. It is true that he has further held that the petitioners as travelled by first class. Mr. R. P. Bhatt for the respondents submitted that the petitioner has not been able to establish that he had asked for reservation vide memo dated 23-11-1979 and such a memo is not traceable on the record of the department. The said circumstance in my view is totally irrelevant. Two tale-tell circumstances stare in the face. Firstly no reservation was admittedly provided for the petitioner in the Second class coach on the day of the incident by 47 Dn. as clearly held by the inquiry officer himself. The second circumstance is that the petitioner in terms pointed out in his appeal memo that as per railway rules under these circumstances he was entitled to travel by first class. If that is so it was necessary for the department to point out its own version to the contrary. In this connection it must be stated that Mr. R. P. Bhatt for the railway administration fairly stated that if a paying cashier asked for reservation in second class and if he is not given that reservation he would be entitled to travel by first class as per the railway rules. But only grievance was that in the present case there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had asked for such reser- vation vide so called memo dated 23-11-1979. If the petitioner had not asked for such reservation nothing prevented the railway administration meeting that contention while deciding the petitioners appeal. But only grievance was that in the present case there was nothing on record to show that the petitioner had asked for such reser- vation vide so called memo dated 23-11-1979. If the petitioner had not asked for such reservation nothing prevented the railway administration meeting that contention while deciding the petitioners appeal. However the appellate order shows that this salient feature is totally lost and not considered at all by the appellate authority. In fact he has broadly agreed with all the findings reached by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the inquiry officers report. Thus on this vital aspect the appellate authority has maintained complete silence. In view of the fact that the petitioner was travelling on the day of the incident by 47 Dn. as paying cashier on duty it is easy to raise a presumption that as an officer on duty he would have asked for reservation by second class as per the railway rules. If he had not asked for reservation the railway administration could have rebutted this presumption about all official acts being performed in official manner. No attempt has been made by the railway administration to rebut this presumption. Even apart from that fact it appears clear that the petitioner in fact was not granted any reservation in second class. Consequently as an officer on duty for the safe custody of cash if he travelled by first class it cannot be said that under the circumstances he was not entitled to travel by first class at the relevant time. Thus even assuming that the inquiry officer had impliedly arrived at a finding that the petitioner was not entitled to travel by first class though as I have already shown above the inquiry officer is totally oblivious of this important ingredient of charge no. 1 and has not arrived at any finding one way or the other an irresistible conclusion follows that the petitioner under the circumstances under which he was put was entitled to travel by first class on the day of the incident. 1 and has not arrived at any finding one way or the other an irresistible conclusion follows that the petitioner under the circumstances under which he was put was entitled to travel by first class on the day of the incident. The finding to the contrary even if assumed to have been impliedly arrived at by the inquiry officer and as accepted by the disciplinary authority and the appellate Authority therefore clearly appears to be patently perverse and one which no reasonable man could have ever arrived at in the light of the evidence on record pertaining to charge No. 1. Consequently charge No. 1 can never be sustained against the petitioner. 16 (1 ). The second and more formidable difficulty in the way of the respondent is that even assuming that entire charge No. 1 stands fully established against the petitioner it cannot be said that the peti- tioner had committed any misconduct which would call for any penalty proceedings against him for the alleged act on his part as covered by charge No. 1. It is impossible to countenance how a railway servant on duty who allegedly travelled by first class when he is carrying huge cash with him for disbursement to railway employees commits any misconduct which would call for departmental proceedings against him calling for major penalty of removal from service or reduction in rank. ( 10 ) IN this connection it will be profitable to have a look at the decision of the Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA V. J. AHMED A. I. R. 1979 S. C. 1022. In that case the Supreme Court was concerned with the question Whether departmental proceedings should be initiated against an employee and any penalty can be imposed against him if the charges levelled against him do not impute any misconduct but project the image of the charge-sheeted employee as reflecting lack of efficiency failure to attend highest standard of administrative ability or error of judgment on his part. D. A. Desai J. speaking for the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment considered Rule 3 of the Discipline and Appeal rules as applicable in that case. The said rule stated that the penalties therein set out may for good and sufficient reasons be imposed on a member of service. One such penalty prescribed therein is removal from service which shall not disqualify for future employment. The said rule stated that the penalties therein set out may for good and sufficient reasons be imposed on a member of service. One such penalty prescribed therein is removal from service which shall not disqualify for future employment. Rule 4 of the said rules prescribed the authority competent to institute disciplinary proceedings and stated that where a member of a service has committed any act or omission which renders him liable to any penalty specified in rule 3 an inquiry shall be held according to procedure prescribed in rule 5. Therefore penalty prescribed in rule 3 can be imposed upon a member of the service for any act or omission committed by him which according to rule 3 must provide good and sufficient reason to impose one or the other of the penalties mentioned therein. With reference to the aforesaid set of rules D. A. Desai J. in the background of the charges levelled against the concerned employee in that case made the following pertinent observations in para 9 of the report :"the five charges listed above at a glance would convey the impression_that the respondent was not a very efficient officer. Some negligence is being attributed to him and some lack of qualities expected of an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner are listed as charges. To wit. charge No. 2 refers to the quality of lack of leadership and charge No. 5 enumerates inaptitude lack of foresight lack of firmness and indecisiveness. These are qualities undoubtedly expected of a super- ior officer and they may be very relevant while considering whether a person should be promoted to the higher post or not or having been promoted whether he should be retained in the higher post or not or they may be relevant for deciding the competence of the person to hold the post but they cannot be elevated to the level of acts of omission or commission as contemplated by rule 4 of the Disci- pline and Appeal Rules so as to incur penalty under R. 3. Competence for the post capability to hold the same efficiency requisite for a post ability to discharge function attached to the post are things different from some act or omission of the holder of the post which may be styled as misconduct so as to incur the penalty under the rules. The words acts and omission contem- plated by. Competence for the post capability to hold the same efficiency requisite for a post ability to discharge function attached to the post are things different from some act or omission of the holder of the post which may be styled as misconduct so as to incur the penalty under the rules. The words acts and omission contem- plated by. R. 4 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules have to be understood in the context of the All India Services (Conduct) Rules 1954 (Conduct Rules for short ). The Government has prescribed by Conduct rules a code of conduct for the members of All India Services. Rule 3 is of a general nature which provides that every member of the service shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. lack of integrity if proved would undoubtedly entail penalty. Failure to come up to the highest expectations of an officer holding a responsible post or lack of aptitude or qualities of leadership would not constitute as failure to maintain devotion to duty. The expression devotion to duty appears to have been used as something opposed to indifference to duty or easy-going or light-hearted approach to duty. "dilating on the question of misconduct which will entail any disciplinary proceedings against employees the following pertinent observations have been made by D. A. Desai J. speaking for the Supreme Court in para 11 of the report :- "it is however. difficult to believe that lack of efficiency or attainment of highest standards in discharge of duty attached to public would ipso facto constitute mis- conduct. There may be negligence in performance of duty and a lapse in performance of duty or error of judgment in evaluating the developing situation may be negligence in discharge of duty but would not constitute misconduct unless the consequences directly attributable to negligence would be such as to be irreparable or the resultant damage would be so heavy that the degree of culpability would be very high. An error can be indicative of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. An error can be indicative of negligence and the degree of culpability may indicate the grossness of the negligence. Carelessness can often be productive of more harm than deliberate wickedness or malevolence. "having considered various charges levelled against the employee in that case it was held by the Supreme Court that when the respondent is sought to be removed as a disciplinary measure and by way of penalty there should have been clear case of misconduct viz. such acts and omissions which would render him liable for any of the punishments set out in Rule 3 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules 1955 and that no such case had been made out. In the present case also pari materia rules govern the fate of this case. The petitioner was proceeded departmentally under the provisions of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 Rule 6 provides for penalties and lays down that the following penalties may for good and sufficient reasons and as herein after provided be imposed on a Railway Servant namely : " Minor penalties: (I) censure; (ii) withholding of his promotion for a specified period. (iii) recovery from his pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Government or railway administration by negligence or breach of orders (iv) withholding of increment of pay for a specified period with further directions) as to whether on the expiry of such period this will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; Major penalties: (V) reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether on the expiry of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay; (vi) reduction to a lower time scale of pay grade post or service with or without further directions regarding conditions of restoration to the grade or service from which the railway servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restora- tion to that grade post or service; (vii) compulsory retirement; (viii) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employ- ment under the Government or Railway Administration. (ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or railway administration. (ix) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment under the Government or railway administration. PROVIDED that in cases of persons found guilty of any act or omission which resulted or would have ordinarily resulted in collisions of railway trains one of the penalties specified in clauses (viii) and (ix) shall ordinarily be imposed and in cases of passing railway signals at danger one of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) shall ordinarily be imposed and where such penalty is not imposed the reasons therefor shall be recorded in writing. (2) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1) the following minor penalties may for good and sufficient reasons and hereinafter provided be imposed on a non-gazetted railway servant namely (i) withholding of the privilege of passes or privilege ticket orders or both; and (ii) fine. It is obvious that the aforesaid Rule 6 applicable in the present case is pari materia with Rule 3 with which the Supreme Court was concerned in J. Ahmeds case (supra ). Consequently the reasoning of the Supreme Court would directly apply to the question in controversy before me. It must therefore he held that before any penalty can be imposed against the petitioner and that too a major penalty it must be shown that there was any good and sufficient reasons for doing so and as interpreted by the Supreme Court good and sufficient reasons would be such which should amount to misconduct on the part of the concerned employee before he can be departmentally proceeded against for imposing prescribed penalty against him for that misconduct. Mr. R. P. Bhatt learned Advocate for the respondents however submitted that as per Railway Services (Conduct) Rules 1966 vide Rule 3 every Railway Servant shall at all times (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Railway or Government servant. He submitted that if the allegation against a Railway employee is covered by any of these three require- ments it would give rise to good and sufficient reason for imposing penalties either major or minor as prescribed by Rule 6 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules 1968. At first blush the aforesaid contention of Mr. Bhatt may appear to be attractive. At first blush the aforesaid contention of Mr. Bhatt may appear to be attractive. But it would stand substantially watered down once we have a look at Rule 9 (2) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules 1968 The said sub-rule provides as under :"whenever the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against a railway servant it may itself inquire into or appoint under this rule or under the provisions of the Public Servants (Inquiries) Act 1850 as the case may be a Board of inquiry or other authority. " It is therefore obvious that any type of imputation would not be covered by the phrase for good and sufficient reasons as mentioned Rule 6 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules 1968 The imputation must be of such grave nature that it might amount to misconduct or misbehaviour of a Railway Servant before any major penalty can be imposed. In the present case the procedure of Rule 9 (2) has been adopted for imposing major penalty on the petitioner for various charges levelled against him. In fact the Disciplinary authority imposed major penalty of removal from service; while the appellate authority imposed a lesser major penalty of reduction to lower rank. However it is still a major penalty. Consequently before any charge can be treated to be grave enough to visit the concerned employee with a major penalty it must be shown that it contains imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour. Hence the decision of the Supreme Court on the inter- pretation of pari materia rule must be held to apply with all force to the facts of the present case. Looking to charge No. 1 by itself therefore it is impossible to conclude that even if the petitioner as alleged therein travelled by first class while he was on duty and even assuming that he was not entitled to travel by first class and he could have travelled by II class it cannot be said that he had committed any misconduct or misbehaviour only on that ground. Consequently charge No. 1 is totally irrelevant for the purpose of imposing any major penalty on the petitioner. Even on this additional and more grave hurdle the departmental proceedings against the petitioner for major penalty on the basis of charge no. 1 cannot be sustained. . . . Consequently charge No. 1 is totally irrelevant for the purpose of imposing any major penalty on the petitioner. Even on this additional and more grave hurdle the departmental proceedings against the petitioner for major penalty on the basis of charge no. 1 cannot be sustained. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charge No. 3. ( 11 ) THAT takes me to charge No. 3 as framed against the petitioner. The allegation in the said charge is that on the day of the incident i. e. On 24-11-1979 the petitioner was playing cards with RPF Rakshaks on duty in the first class compartment in 47 Dn. and this was contrary to rules 3 (i) (ii) and (iii) of the Railway Service Conduct Rules 1966 as thereby the petitioner had shown absolutely lack of devotion to duty and his conduct was unbecoming of a railway servant. The aforesaid charge comprises of two ingredients (i) that the petitioner was travelling in first class compartment and (ii) that he was playing cards with R. P. F. Rakshaks on duty. So far as this charge is concerned in his written reply filed before the inquiry officer it was contended by the petitioner that he had not played cards with R. P. F. Rakshaks. In short he totally denied such allegation. The inquiry officer in his report framed issue No. 4 to the effect whether the petitioner played cards with R. P. F. Rakshaks while travelling by 47 Dn. on 24-11-1979 and whether it was contrary to rules. On the basis of the evidence led before him the inquiry officer answered issue No. 4 in the affirmative and held that the petitioner was playing cards at Ahmedabad as well as at Chandlodia stations with the R. P. F. Rakshaks. The inquiry officer has further observed that playing of cards when a railway servant is on duty is definitely unbecoming particularly wit_ cashier because it will cause non-attention to protect the cash and vouchers in case he engages himself in playing cards with the Rakshaks. It is difficult to appreciate the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the in- quiry officer and which in its turn got accepted wholesale by the dis- ciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. It is difficult to appreciate the aforesaid reasoning adopted by the in- quiry officer and which in its turn got accepted wholesale by the dis- ciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. It is to be kept in view that it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was playing cards in the train while he was actually engaged in disburse- ment of the cash amount to the concerned railway employees. During the time he was not engaged in disbursement of the amount and he was in the course of journey towards his destination if the petitioner to while-away time in the course of railway journey plays cards with Rakshaks it cannot be said that his conduct was unbecoming of a railway employee on duty. It must be stated that no rule could be pointed out by Mr. Bhatt for the respondents prohibiting a railway servant from playing cards in a running train when he is not actually engaged in performance of his duty as a paying cashier. It should be realised that the petitioner was in charge paying-cashier who had boarded the train from Baroda and he was en-route to Viramgam where he had to make various payments to Viramgam railway staff. Thus Viramgam was the destination. On way at the specified stations where the train halted the petitioner was required to make payments to the concerned staff members. Working at of those stations. For that purpose the petitioner boarded the train at Baroda and resumed his onward journey to Viramgam. He was on duty. The cash box was being carried by him under the protection of 2 Rakshaks or guards. Now during the time the petitioner was not actually engaged in making payment of cash and when the train was in motion the petitioner could have either chitchatted or could have whiled-away his time by yawning or dosing. Instead of doing so if he played cards with his companions who were guards Accompanying him it cannot be said that he had committed any misconduct or had exhibited conduct unbecoming of a railway servant on duty. Mr. Bhatt could press into service only rule 3 (i) (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services Conduct Rules; 1966. I have already referred to the said rule in earlier part of this judgment. To recapitulate it merely states. Mr. Bhatt could press into service only rule 3 (i) (ii) and (iii) of Railway Services Conduct Rules; 1966. I have already referred to the said rule in earlier part of this judgment. To recapitulate it merely states. " Every railway servant shall at all times - (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a railway or Government servant. " Merely because the petitioner as paying cashier on duty played cards during the time was not actually engaged in disbursement of cash and was en-route to his place or destination where he had to perform his duty and during the time the train was in motion it cannot be said that he had faired to maintain absolute integrity or devotion to duty or that he had exhibited conduct unbecoming of a railway servant. During the time the train is in motion even though the railway servant is on duty it is difficult to appreciate how he cannot utilise his spare time by playing cards or in any other legally permissible pur- suits. Mr. Bhatt could not combate the proposition that if the petition- er had chitchatted or had merely dozed during the time the train was in motion he could not have been held guilty of any lack of devotion to duty. If that is so merely because he played cards by keeping awake it cannot be said with any emphasis that he had exhibit conduct un- becoming of a railway servant. Mr. Bhatt faintly suggested that as the petitioner who was in charge of cash accompanied by two armed guards indulged in playing cards with them during the time the train was in motion safety of the cash would get jeopardised. It may be appreciated that this is merely an apprehension voiced by Mr. Bhatt which is not based on any evidence on record. It is not even the case of the departmental authorities in the departmental procee- dings against the petitioner that the petitioners conduct of playing cards in the running train while he was on duty as paying cashier had jeopardised the safety of cash. Not only there is no such charge against the petitioner but there is no evidence on record of the case that by the petitioners playing on with the guards custody of the cash was rendered unsafe in any manner. Not only there is no such charge against the petitioner but there is no evidence on record of the case that by the petitioners playing on with the guards custody of the cash was rendered unsafe in any manner. It should be realised that the guards were armed guards. The petitioner according to the railway administra- tion was travelling by first class at the relevant time. He was on duty but the time for actual disbursement of cash had still not arrived as he had not reached the destination and the train was in motion. At that time if he played cards with the guards it cannot be said that he had committed any misconduct. The only charge against him is that by playing cards with the guards he had exhibit conduct unbecoming of a railway servant. Even on the allegations contained in the charge no such conduct can be imputed against the petitioner by any remotest chance. The charge to say the least is totally still borne and without any efficacy whatsoever. The finding of inquiry officer on this charge reflected in charge No. 4 is totally perverse and unreasonable. It must therefore be held that issue No. 3 against the petitioner does not stand proved on the record of the departmental proceedings conducted by the inquiry officer and must be held to be based on no legal evidence to support the said charge. In any case the allegations contained in the charge do not represent any misconduct on the part of the petitioner which would entail infliction of a major penalty on the petitioner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ( 12 ) THAT takes me to charge No. 6. To recapitulate the said charge alleges against the petitioner that he refused to make payment to the concerned staff on 24-11-1979 because he wanted a commission of 1% on the arrears which the staff were unwilling to pay. His refusal to make the payment on the said day and the consequent agitation and detention of train arose from his alleged mala fide intention of receiving commission on the arrears payment. A mere look at the charge shows that this is a very serious charge. Mr. His refusal to make the payment on the said day and the consequent agitation and detention of train arose from his alleged mala fide intention of receiving commission on the arrears payment. A mere look at the charge shows that this is a very serious charge. Mr. Mehta for the petitioner rightly conceded that if this charge is held proved the petitioner would deserve extreme penalty of being dismissed from service. But in his submission there is no evidence whatsoever before the departmental authorities to sustain this charge. Mr. Bhatt for the respondent also fairly stated me that there is a positive evidence led before the inquiry officer to show that the petitioner demanded 1% commission on arrears bills from the concerned employees but a reasonable inference has been raised by the inquiry officer in the light of the available evidence on the record on this point and that the said inference cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. Under this circumstances I was required to minutely examine the evidence led before the inquiry officer on charge No. 6. Both the learned Advocates for the respective parties took me through the relevant evidence and addressed as on the point. Before I go to the evidence led before the inquiry officer on charge No. 6 with a view to finding out whether there is any legal evidence to support that charge it would be necessary to have a look at the written reply filed by the petitioner to charge No. 6 before the inquiry officer and the finding reached by the inquiry officer on that charge. It is needless to recall that all the findings of the inquiry officer on the relevant charges have been mechanically adopted by the discipli- nary authority and the appellate authority. Therefore their orders do not shed any further light on the question. Whatever light is available has to be gathered from the report of the inquiry officer the evidence led before him and the finding reached by him to support the concer- ned charges. So far as the written reply of the petitioner is concerned he stated before the inquiry officer in writing that the said charge is imaginary brought forward to by Shri G. K. Mishra Assistant Station master but he has failed to prove the same. So far as the written reply of the petitioner is concerned he stated before the inquiry officer in writing that the said charge is imaginary brought forward to by Shri G. K. Mishra Assistant Station master but he has failed to prove the same. Not only that he him- self has confessed that there was no such sort of talk with the petitioner as is deposed by him in his statement recorded during the course of the D. R. inquiry on 16-10-1980. All the prosecution wit- nesses have miserably failed to establish this charge either with any documentary proof or eye witnesses and therefore this charge is baseless vague and fabricated one and therefore it be treated as null and void. If it would have been so definitely this would have been brought to the notice of Shri Christian Assistant Station master Chandlodia who witnessed the payment on 27-11-1979 and to the IOC Baroda in whose presence the payment of railway tribunal award was made. Thus the alleged charge is concocted one and requires to be dropped. Not a single sole has come forward to prove this even Shri Mishra himself. Thus the petitioner vehemently refused that charge and submitted that there was no evidence before the inquiry officer to bring home the charge to him. So far as the inquiry officers report is concerned he framed issue No. 7 covering the said charge. On issue No. 7 the inquiry officer has held that there is no documentary evidence to establish the charge that the petitioner demanded 1% commission on payment of railway bribunal award arrears from the staff of Chandlodia railway station. There is however. recorded evidence which has been corroborated by many employees. It is there- after that the inquiry officer has noted that Shri G. K. Mishra Assis- tant Station Master has stated that some unknown person approached him at Ahmedabad and advised him that payment against the railway tribunal award arrears would be made by the petitioner if 1% commi- ssion was paid to him. He further passed this information to staff of Chandlodia refused to make payment. He further stated that after hearing the decision from the staff the petitioner advised that he would not make payment on that day i. e. 24 1979 without assi- gning any reason. The assistant station master Mr. Mishra further stated that soon after reaching Chandlodia he advised Mr. He further stated that after hearing the decision from the staff the petitioner advised that he would not make payment on that day i. e. 24 1979 without assi- gning any reason. The assistant station master Mr. Mishra further stated that soon after reaching Chandlodia he advised Mr. Parikh about the fact that the petitioner demanded 1% commission on the payment. Mr. Parikh contacted the petitioner who was in the 1st class compartment and inquired as to why he was not arranging payment to Chandlodia Staff. The petitioner replied that he needed presence of a gazetted officer and he had no time to make payment to Chandlodia staff on 24-11-1979. In this connection the inquiry officer noted that it is to be seen as to why the petitioner had to take such an action which led to the detention to train causing agitation amongst railway employees and staff by not discharging duties in making payment. Ultimately each action has to be backed with some motive. He further observed that under the normal circumstances none would like to take risk without having some sound motive behind the action which goes against the legitimate discharge of duties. Further the petitioner also refused to accept memo and on verbal instructions passed to him by Shri Parikh to speak to Sr. DAO Baroda on control phone he refused to do anything and did not speak to Sr. DAO Baroda. Under these circumstances the inquiry officer noted that the circumstantial evidence as well as recorded evidence go to establish that the petitioner had some ulterior motive for meeting his selfish end which led him to take such drastic step of causing detention to a passenger train and not carrying out legitimate orders of his superiors. However he was inclined to base his conclusion on the recorded and circumstantial evidence which established that the petitioner demanded 1% commission from the employees for the payment of arrears which was to be made on 24-11-1979. It is therefore apparent that the inquiry officer clearly noted total absence of documentary evidence to show that the petitioner demanded 1% commission from the concerned employees. But he presumed that he must have so demanded commission in that manner otherwise there was no earthly reason for him not to make payment to the concerned staff members and to cause detention of the train. But he presumed that he must have so demanded commission in that manner otherwise there was no earthly reason for him not to make payment to the concerned staff members and to cause detention of the train. It is obvious that it is merely a conjecture or suspicion on the part of the inquiry officer. It is in these circumstances that the recorded evidence will have to be scrutinised to find out whether there is any tittle of evidence on record to show that the petitioner demanded 1% commission from any one on the day of the incident. before agreeing to make payment of arrears to the concerned employees. ( 13 ) MR. Bhatt for the respondents submitted that entire charge No. 6 is based on probabilities and inferences. It may be that the petitioner may not have actually demanded 1% commission from any one. But it was alleged by the railway administration that the motive behind withholding payment of arrears to the concerned employees was a mala fide motive and that therefore the charge was held proved by the inquiry officer. It is not possible to agree with the said submission of Mr. Bhatt. Such a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the concerned employee. He would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in Such cases. Therefore such a grave charge of quasi criminal nature was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere probabilities as Mr. Bhatt would like to have it and even on that account the charge would not remain well sustained as the petitioner had taken up a consistent stand all throughout that in the absence of a gazetted officer he could not make payment at Chandlodia on 24-11-1979 to only some of the state members when majority of the staff members covered by the same arrears bill could not be paid in the absence of a gazetted officer. Thus a consistent stand taken by him cannot be said to be improbable. Thus a consistent stand taken by him cannot be said to be improbable. But I am not concerned with that aspect of the matter as I am not sitting as a court of appeal My limited function is to find out from the evidence led before the inquiry officer as to whether there is any tittle of evidence or any excuse of evidence to suggest or show that the petitioner had demanded 1% commission from any one before disbursing arrears of railway tribunal award to the concerned employees. If there is any evidence to that effect the matter must end as this court is not a court of appeal which can reappreciate the evidence. Equally if there is no evidence whatsoever the matter must end the other way for the simple reason that the finding of the inquiry officer on such a grave charge of quasi criminal nature would be rendered totally perverse and ultra vires as based on no legal evidence whatsoever. It is in the background of the aforesaid limited scope of controversy before me that I proceed to quickly glance through the relevant evidence led before the inquiry officer during the departmental proceedings against the petitioner on charge No. 6. ( 14 ) THE first witness examined before the inquiry officer in support of the charge is one Mr. G. K. Mishra Assistant Station master Chandlodia. His statement is recorded as statement No. 2 before the inquiry officer. He was asked question No. 1 as to what he know about the incident that happened on 24-11-1979 when there was agitation at Chandlodia a nd the train was detained for more than an hour on the cashiers account. In answer to that question he stated that he came to Ahmedabad and went to platform No. 1 where 47 Dn. was waiting. He found a man who to]d him that his railway tribunal award payment was available with the petitioner and he was asking for 1% commission. If he was ready to pay he would arrange the payment. Mr. Mishra personally approached the petitioner in person in 1st class and disclosed his identify and asked regarding the payment of the said arrears. Before it the man who was standing near the 1st class compartment had already approached the petitioner. If he was ready to pay he would arrange the payment. Mr. Mishra personally approached the petitioner in person in 1st class and disclosed his identify and asked regarding the payment of the said arrears. Before it the man who was standing near the 1st class compartment had already approached the petitioner. On inquiry the petitioner told that he had payment with him but he had got no time and when he would get time he would arrange the payment. The witness asked the staff whether they were ready to pay the commission or not and the staff flatly refused to do so. Meanwhile the train started and the witness got down and entered the and class and reached Chandlodia. By question No. 11 he was asked as to whether he knew the man who told him at Ahmedabad that the petitioner was asking for 1% commission. In answer to that question he stated that he did not know his name but he was standing near the first class compartment gate. question No. 15 he was asked as to what he did after narrating the history of the case to Mr. Parikh at Chandlodia station. In answer the witness stated that he did not go home and he was present at the station. Mr. Parikh contacted control and asked that the petitioner was refusing payment and asking for 1% commission. The control gave a memo to call the petitioner in Assistant Station Masters office to talk to control. Again other 2 to 3 memos were sent to him alongwith the two pointsmen as mentioned earlier but all were refused by the petitioner as per Mr. Parikh and the pointsmen. These are the only relevant questions asked to him in his examination in chief. In none of the answers given by him he has even alleged that the petitioner had demanded 1% commission from him. His allegation is that some unknown person had told him at Ahmedabad station that the petitioner was demanding 1% commission. That is neither here nor there. It is no evidence in the eye of law The witness was cross examined in great details on behalf of the petitioner I will refer to the relevant questions in the cross examination on this aspect. By questions No. 29. That is neither here nor there. It is no evidence in the eye of law The witness was cross examined in great details on behalf of the petitioner I will refer to the relevant questions in the cross examination on this aspect. By questions No. 29. he was asked whether he could say that some unknown person who met him at Ahmedabad met him before approaching the petitioner on 24 or afterwards i. e. whether after meeting the cashier. In answer the witness stated that that unknown person met him before meeting the petitioner and from him only he came to know that payment was available with the petitioner. Next question being question No. 30 was put to him whether be could say who was the person who met him at Ahmedabad station before approaching himself to the petitioner. He answered that he did not know the name. Question No. 31 was asked to the witness as to whether the man who met him was known to him or otherwise or whether he was a railway employee or outsider his answer was that he could not say whether that man was a railway employee or an outsider but he was on platform No. 1 and standing near 1st class compartment and he came to know that payment was available with the petitioner. Thereafter question No. 32 was asked to the effect that it was mere imagination of the witness and that as he was not in uniform that unknown person would never recognise him (the witness) as the Assistant station master. In answer the witness stated that generally when the petitioner comes by train some of the railway employees are waiting regarding their payment. When the witness was also coming he saw that some railway employees were wandering here and there and he felt that the petitioner might be just in the compartment on nearby. When he came near the 1st class compartment he saw that a man had inquired whether the DPC is available. He answered that the cashier was available and asked him whether he was coming from Chandlodia and if so he told that he had already consulted the petitioner and he would make payment if the witness agreed for payment of 1% commission. The witness was not in uniform at that time. He answered that the cashier was available and asked him whether he was coming from Chandlodia and if so he told that he had already consulted the petitioner and he would make payment if the witness agreed for payment of 1% commission. The witness was not in uniform at that time. When further cross examined on this point vide question No. 43 as to whether during his stay of about 2 to 3 minutes in the 1st class compartment did the petitioner ever talk to him regarding 1% commission on the payment of arrears bill the witness replied that he did not meaning thereby that the petitioner had not asked for 1% commission from the witness. Further question was framed vide question No. 44 to the effect that in view of his answer to question No. 43 was it not the fact that the version that some one had told him about 1% commission could not be believed. The witness answered that as the answer given by the petitioner was in obstinate mood he found that it was only the reason for which he had to believe the version of the outsider. Thus it was a conjecture or suspicion of the witness at the highest that the petitioner was demanding 1% commission. Then follows question No. 45 which is the last relevant question. The witness was asked as to whether it was his belief or whether it was his confirmed opinion. His answer was that it was a fact that 1% commission was told by the outside but it was not confessed by the petitioner and he also did not find any necessity to become obstinate and to have some fact in this regard. In the light of the answers given by witness Mr. Mishra on the relevant question it is obvious that he had no personal knowledge about the petitioner demanding 1% commission before disbursing the each amount to the concerned recepients who were entitled to receive the cash and the knowledge of the witness was based on hearsay statement of some unknown person whom he did not know. This is certainly no legal evidence to sustain such a serious charge of corruption against an employee. Thus the evidence of Mr. Mishra at statement No. 2 does not furnish any legally reliable permissible evidence to sustain charge No. 6. This is certainly no legal evidence to sustain such a serious charge of corruption against an employee. Thus the evidence of Mr. Mishra at statement No. 2 does not furnish any legally reliable permissible evidence to sustain charge No. 6. ( 15 ) I may then turn to stto statement No. 3 given by Mr. A. C. Parikh who was the Assistant Station Master Chandlodia at the relevant time. He was asked question No. 1 in his examination in chief to the effect that there was a complaint of station staff of Chandlodia that the petitioner did not arrange payment of railway tribunal award to the Chandlodia station staff on 24 11-1979 with the result that there was an agitation and the train was detained for more than an hour on cashiers account. What did he know about that incident. The answer given by the witness showed that he personally went to the petitioner to receive payment but he refused and told him that he would not do payment on that day as he required the presence of a gazetted officer and then the witness came to the office and as the staff was preseeing he contacted the control and gave memo to the petitioner. So far as this witness is concerned he nowhere stated that the petitioner had demanded 1% commission before making payment. Then follows question No. 16 regarding his impression of the scene at Chandlodia when the train was detained for more than an hour. His answer was that on arrival of 47 D N. On 24-11-1979 he approached the petitioner for payment while going D PC Shri Mishra met him and advised that the railway tribunal award bills were available with the petitioner out he had refused to arrange payment on the ground of presence of a gazetted officer for witnessing the payments and he was demanding 1% commi- ssion. Then he approached the petitioner who was sitting in 1st class compartment. The petitioner replied that on that day he would not arrange payment and the presence of a gazetted officer was necessary. Thus the answer given to question No. 16 clearly shows that so far as this witness is concerned the petitioner had only told him that he would not make any payment in absence of a gazetted officer. The witness nowhere states that the petitioner had demanded any commi- ssion from him. Thus the answer given to question No. 16 clearly shows that so far as this witness is concerned the petitioner had only told him that he would not make any payment in absence of a gazetted officer. The witness nowhere states that the petitioner had demanded any commi- ssion from him. But his so called knowledge about the petitioners demand for commission is found on what was told to him by Mr. Mishra. While discussing the statement of Mr. Mishra it has been found that even Mr. Mishras knowledge about the alleged demand of 1 commission by the petitioner was not based on any personal talk with the petitioner but was based on so called information conveyed to him by some unknown person whom he could not locate. Thus if Mr. Mishras version itself is not based on any legal evidence what was passed on by Mr. Mishra to this witness Mr. Parikh cannot streng- then the case of the railway administration against the petitioner. If Mr. Mishras statement was based on hear-say and inadmissible evide- nce his further talk to witness Mr. Parikh would still remain in the realm of hearsay evidence and would not furnish any legally permissible evidence to sustain any adverse finding on charge No. 6. Witness Mr. Parikh was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioner. A straight question was asked as question No. 23 to the effect that in his answer to question No. 16 he had stated that Mr. Mishra had advised him that the petitioner was demanding 1% commission. Did he talk to the petitioner regarding the commission ? His answer was that he did not talk with the petitioner regarding the commission. This answer really clinches the issue against the respondents so far as this witness is concerned. He furnishes no legally permissible evidence on the basis of which any finding can be based regarding the petitioners demand of 1 commission on arrears. The aforesaid is the only relevant version on charge No. 6 as deposed to by witness Mr. Parikh. A mere look at the relevant answer given by the witness leave no room for doubt that his evidence nowhere connects the petitioner with charge No. 6. ( 16 ) THE next witness examined before the inquiry officer is Sham- sherkhan Jorawarkhan. The aforesaid is the only relevant version on charge No. 6 as deposed to by witness Mr. Parikh. A mere look at the relevant answer given by the witness leave no room for doubt that his evidence nowhere connects the petitioner with charge No. 6. ( 16 ) THE next witness examined before the inquiry officer is Sham- sherkhan Jorawarkhan. He was a railway employee on duty at Chandlodia between 7 and 16 hours on the day of the incident. In his examination -in-chief he nowhere alleged anything against the petitioner regarding his demand of 1% commission on payment of arrears. But in his cross- examination question No. ( 17 ) WAS asked to him as to whether Shri Parikh or Shri Mishra ever told him regarding demand of commission to the petitioner and in his answer he stated than neither Shri Parikh nor Shri Mishra ever told him regarding demand of 1% commission but he only heard from the vibrating murmur by the staff standing at the station Question No. 31 was then posed to him to the effect-whether he con- firmed from any one specifically regarding the demand of 1% commission by the petitioner. His answer was that he did not get it confirmed from any one specifically but he only heard it. It is obvious therefore that this witness has personal knowledge whatsoever regarding demand of 1 commission by the petitioner and his version is based on mere sus- picion and is totally vague and does not furnish any legal evidence to connect the petitioner with the charge. 28 The next witness relevant on the present point is Mohan Jetha whose statement is at statement No. 5. He was pointsman at Chandlodia at the relevant time. In answer to question No. 1 regarding what he had to say about the incident in question the witness stated that the Assistant station master on duty told him that the cashier was not arranging payment in absence of a gazetted officer. In his answer to question No. 1 the witness nowhere connects the petitioner with the alleged demand for payment of 1% commission. In his answer to question No. 1 the witness nowhere connects the petitioner with the alleged demand for payment of 1% commission. However question No 12 was asked to him to the effect-whether anybody told him that the petitioner was demanding 1% commission for making payment on 24 and his answer was that the staff amongst then selves were talking that the petitioner was demanding 1% commission for making payment on 24-11-1979. No specific person was known to the witness in that connection. Thus his version was based on pure suspicion and hearsay and he had nothing to allege directly against the petitioner regarding demand of 1% commission. The witness was cross examined in details. By question No. 21 he was asked that in his previous statement recorded by ADAO/baroda and ADS (G) Baroda he had stated that on arrival of 47 Dn. on 24-11-1979 the staff alongwith Shri Mishra who had been to Ahmedabad for payment came to the Assistant Station Master and informed him on that the petitioner was demanding 12 Commission and therefore he was not arranging payment. The witness was asked as whether his earlier version was right or the version which was deposed to by him was right. He answered that whatever statement he was making on that day before the inquiry officer was valid one. Thus he gave a go bye to his earlier statement recorded in the preliminary inquiry. Mr. Mishras own version on oath has already been considered by me and it is found that his statement nowhere connects the petitioner with charge No. 6. Consequently if Mishras own version cannot connect the petitioner with the said charge the version of other witnesses based on what Mr. Mishra told them would obviously fall far short of connecting the petitioner with the charge. At question No. 41 the witness was asked as to whether there was any talk between the witness and the petitioner regarding demand of 1% commission by the petitioner and the answer was that he had no talk regarding 1% commission with the cashier i. e. the petitioner. He was then asked question No. 42 to the effect that in the written complaint blank space was kept for witness at serial No. 1 as he was senior pointsman at Chandlodia and that he had signed the complaint after going through it. He was then asked question No. 42 to the effect that in the written complaint blank space was kept for witness at serial No. 1 as he was senior pointsman at Chandlodia and that he had signed the complaint after going through it. That led to prove that he had confirmed in writing that the petitioner was demanding 120 commission whereas there was no such talk between him and the cashier (petitioner ). What he had to say about the same ? The answer of the witness was that since it was a joint complaint though not confirmed by the witness he being one of the staff working at Chandlodia station signed the same. Thus the version in the written complaint was not endorsed by the witness before the inquiry officer. The witness was further asked by question No. 52 that on 27 1979 payment was made to the staff at Chandlodia by the petitioner. Did any one tell him regarding demand of 1% commission which he heard the same on 24-11-1979. The answer of the witness was that nobody told regarding demand nor any discussion took place. The aforesaid are the relevant answers given by the witness to the questions centering round charge No. 6. It is obvious that the version deposed to by this witness nowhere connects the petitioner with the charge and totally falls flat in that attempt. ( 18 ) THE next witness is J. B. Christian Assistant Station Master Chandlodia. His version is at statement No. 6. He was cross examined below his earlier statement. In answer to question No. 3 he fairly stated that nobody informed him nor talked to him regarding demand of 1% commission by the petitioner. In answer to question No. 6 he stated that on 24-11-1979 he was on duty from 22-00 to 6-00 hours and the class IV staff who were on duty in night shift simply told him that their railway tribunal award payment had come but the payment thereof was not arranged by the petitioner on 24-11-1979. Nothing further was known to this witness. These answers given by this witness clearly establish that he had nothing to allege against the petitioner so far as demand of 1% commission before making disbursement of arrears of Railway tribunal award was concerned. His evidence is totally innocuous. ( 19 ) THEN comes statement No. 7 of Chhutna Chatur gate keeper. Nothing further was known to this witness. These answers given by this witness clearly establish that he had nothing to allege against the petitioner so far as demand of 1% commission before making disbursement of arrears of Railway tribunal award was concerned. His evidence is totally innocuous. ( 19 ) THEN comes statement No. 7 of Chhutna Chatur gate keeper. In answer to question No. 3 the witness stated that he had accompanied Mr. Mishra to Ahmedabad on 24-11-1979 to receive payment of Railway tribunal award. Question No. 4 was to the effect whether he and others also accompanied Mr. Mishra ware entering in the compartment of 47 Dn. train on 24-11-1979 by which the petitioner was travelling or Mr. Mishra only approached the cashier (Petitioner ). His answer was that he alongwith other staff and Mr. Mishra approached the petitioner who was in II class compartment of 47 Dn. on 24-11-1979. Mr. Mishra had a talk with the petitioner. But that much he knew according to the information given to them that someone met Mr. Mishra who in turn told that the petitioner was demanding some money. The witness did not hear himself the said talk between Mr. Mishra and some one with his own ear. But there was murmuring amongst the staff whom at that time he did not remember. But once again he stated that he did not hear the same personally. This is the only relevant version deposed to by witness Chhutna Chatur at statement No. 7 so far as charge No. 6 is concerned. It is obvious that the version deposed to by this witness falls short of connecting the petitioner with charge No. 6. It furnishes no legal and valid data or evidence on the basis of which any finding on issue No. 6 can be sustained against the petitioner. ( 20 ) THE next statement is of Sola Manji whose statement is recorded as statement No. 9. He was asked question No. 2 to the effect whether he accompanied Mr. Mishra from Chandlodia or he met him at Ahmedabad station and his answer was that he along with other staff approached the cashier but before they could approach him some one told them that if they are prepared to pay 1% commission then the cashier would agree to make the payment otherwise not. Then Mr. Mishra from Chandlodia or he met him at Ahmedabad station and his answer was that he along with other staff approached the cashier but before they could approach him some one told them that if they are prepared to pay 1% commission then the cashier would agree to make the payment otherwise not. Then Mr. Mishra approached the cashier and the witness while other staff was standing outside. He did not know that someone not knew his name. Question No. 11 was asked to the effect as to whether the cashier demanded any commission from him or did he come across any one who told about the demand of 1% commission by the cashier for railway tribunal award payment on 27 1979 and his answer was in the negative. It is therefore clear that so far as this witness is concerned he nowhere connects the petitioner with the alleged demand of 1% commission. . ( 21 ) THE next statement is of Viraji S. who was pointsman at Chandlodia station on the day of the incident. His statement is recorded as statement No. 10 He was asked question No. 5 as to whether he received the payment of the railway tribunal award at Ahmedabad on 24 or not. He answered that Mr. Mishra was on his way to approach the cashier but some one met him whom he (the witness) did not know and told Mr. Mishra that if they were prepared to pay 1% Commission then the cashier was prepared to make payment of the said amount. But they refused to abide by the said demand. Mr. Mishra after Contacting the cashier told them that the cashier was not prepared to make payment Question No. 24 was put to him as to whether the cashier demanded anything from him on 27-11-1979 at the time of railway tribunal award payment. and his answer was in the negative. This witness also nowhere connects the petitioner with the alleged demand of 1% commission. ( 22 ) THE last statement which is relied on the point is statement No. 18 given by S. L. Khatri who was working as IOC officiating as divisional cashier Baroda. By question No. 31 he was asked whether any staff of Chandlodia station complained to him regarding the demand of commission by the cashier on 27-11-1979 and his answer was in the negative. By question No. 31 he was asked whether any staff of Chandlodia station complained to him regarding the demand of commission by the cashier on 27-11-1979 and his answer was in the negative. ( 23 ) THE aforesaid is the entire recorded evidence of various witnesses on the point in issue. The learned advocates of both the sides Mr. Mehta for the petitioner as well as Mr. Bhatt for the respondent agreed that charge No. 6 if at all has to be sustained on the aforesaid recorded statements of the concerned witnesses and the relevant answers which they have given to the questions put to them in connection with charge No. 6. In the light of all these relevant statements and the answers given by the witnesses on the questions put to them regarding charge No. 6 an inevitable conclusion follows that none of them by remotest possibility has tried to connect the petitioner with charge of having demanded 1% commission from any of them. At the highest the witness seem to be labouring under some suspicion. The long and short of the entire department case against the petitioner as reflected by the aforesaid evidence is to the effect that Mr. Mishra whose statement is recorded at statement No. 2 before the inquiry officer was informed by some unknown person that the petitioner was demanding 1% commission and the said unknown person met him at Ahmedabad station. Save and except this evidence there is nothing to even remotely connect the petitioner with charge No. 6. It is obvious that the aforesaid evidence is no evidence in the eye of Law. It cannot be said with any emphasis that the information allegedly conveyed by some unknown person to Mr. Mishra would furnish any legal data for basing the finding of guilt against the petitioner so far as charge No. 6 is concerned. Nor from the evidence it can be concluded by any one concerned with weighing of evidence may be in departmental proceedings that it is brought home to the petitioner that he had demanded 1% commission from the concerned railway employees before making payment of the railway tribunal award amount on 24-11-1919. It is true that the domestic inquiry does not proceed on the same lines as a full fledged judicial inquiry. It is also true that strict rules of evidence do not apply to departmental proceedings. It is true that the domestic inquiry does not proceed on the same lines as a full fledged judicial inquiry. It is also true that strict rules of evidence do not apply to departmental proceedings. Still however when a charge of quasi criminal nature is to be brought home to the delinquent basic principles of fairness and natural justice would require that there should be legal evidence available on record to bring home the guilt of quasicriminal nature to the delinquent. In the present case there is no legal evidence whatsoever led in the departmental proceedings against the petitioner to bring home such a grave charge of alleged demand of 1% commission by the petitioner. ( 24 ) IN this connection I may usefully turn to one decision of the Supreme court on the point. I have already referred to this decision earlier in the context of powers of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. In CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA V. P. C. JAIN A. I. R. 1969 S. C. 983 (SUPRA) the Supreme Court was concerned with a depart mental inquiry conducted by Central Bank of India against one Mr. P. C. Jain an employee at its New Delhi branch. The first charge against the employee was that on 14-1-1960. Rs. 30 400 were paid to him by Nand Kishore Assistant cashier out of the cheque drawn by M/s Mool Chand Hari Kishan for Rs. 63 0 Taking this money P. C. Jain on on the same day i. e. 14-1-1960 left for Muzaffarnagar in company of some persons to retire 2 bills drawn by M/s. Gupta Iron Industries which he knew to have been drawn on bogus firms. They were retired by drawers representative at Muzaffarnagar. Mr. P. C. Jain falsely claimed that he had never gone to Muzaffarnagar on the date of incident. This charge was held proved by the inquiry officer. The Bank thereupon dismissed Mr. Jain and sought approval of the Industrial Tribunal under sec. 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 to the said order of dismissal as by that time an industrial dispute was pending between the bank and its employees before the tribunal. The tribunal held that no approval could be granted as the findings of the inquiry officer as accepted by the bank were perverse and based on mere conjectures. The tribunal held that no approval could be granted as the findings of the inquiry officer as accepted by the bank were perverse and based on mere conjectures. The said order of the tribunal was challenged by the Bank before the Supreme Court. While dismissing this appeal Bhargava J. speaking for the Supreme Court made the following pertinent observations in para 8 of the report in connection with the nature of evidence to be led in departmental proceedings before bringing home the guilt to the delinquent:"however we find that on the other ingredients of the first charge the tribunal was justified in arriving at the conclusion that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer were perverse. The tribunal gave the reason that these findings were based on hearsay evidence. This view taken by the tribunal appears to be fully justified. The first and the third elements of the charge relating to payment of the sum of Rs. 30 400 to the respondent by Nand Kishore and of the respondent leaving for Muzaffarnagar in the company of some persons in order to retire the bills drawn by M/s. Gupta Iron Industries were sought to be proved before the inquiry officer by the evidence of the internal auditor N. N. Vazifdar but the latter could not give any direct evidence as he was not present at the time when money was paid to the respondent or when the respondent left for Muzaffarnagar. He purported to prove these elements of the charge by deposing that a statement was made to him by Nand Kishore to the effect that Nand Kishore had paid Rs. 30 400 to the respondent and that thereafter the respondent left for Muzaffarnagar in the company of two persons. The enquiry officer accepted this evidence of Vazifdar but ignored the fact that Vazifdars evidence was not direct evidence in respect of the elements of the charge sought to be proved and that Vazifdar was only trying to prove a previous statement of Nand Kishore which as rightly held by the Tribunal would amount to hearsay evidence. Nand Kishore himself was also examined as a witness but in his evidence which was admissible as substantive evidence he made no statement that this sum of Rs. Nand Kishore himself was also examined as a witness but in his evidence which was admissible as substantive evidence he made no statement that this sum of Rs. 30 400 was paid by him to the respondent or that the respondent left for Muzaffarnagar in the company of some persons to retire the bills drawn by M/s. Gupta Iron Industries. In fact Nand Kishore even went further and denied that he had made any statement to Vazifdar as stated by Vazifdar. The enquiry officer was of course entitled to from his own opini on and to believe Vazifdar in preference to Nand Kishore but on this basis the only finding that the domestic tribunal could record was that Nand Kishores statement given before him was incorrect and that Nand Kishore had made statements to Vazifdar as deposed by Vazifdar. Those statements made by Nand Kishore to Vazifdar could not however become substantive evidence to prove the correctness of these elements forming part of the charge. It is in this connection that importance attaches to the views expressed by this court in the cases cited above where it was pointed out that a finding of a domestic tribunal may be perverse if it is not supported by any legal evidence. It is true that in numerous cases it has been held that domestic tribunals like an enquiry officer are not bound by the technical rules about evidence contained in the Indian Evidence Act; but it has nowhere been laid down that even substantive rules which would form part of principles of natural justice also can be ignored by the domestic tribunals. The principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held and that statements made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive evidence is one of the basic principles which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of procedure contained in the Evidence Act. In fact learned counsel for the appellant Bank was unable to point out any case at all where it may have been held by this court or by any other that a domestic tribunal will be justified in recording its findings on the basis of hearsay evidence without having any direct or circumstantial evidence in support of those findings. " It is therefore obvious that even in departmental proceedings when charges of quasi criminal nature are to be brought home to the delinquent there must be substantive evidence to connect the delinquent with the alleged charge. Mere hearsay evidence would not supply any data or foundation for sustaining such a grave charge against the delinquent. In the present case the situation is almost parallel so far as charge No. 6 is concerned to that which obtained before the Supreme Court in the Central Bank of Indias case (supra ). Under these circumstances it must be held that there was no legal evidence whatsoever on the record before the inquiry officer to sustain charge No. 6 against the petitioner and the finding reached by the inquiry officer must be held to be totally perverse and void at law. [the rest of the judgment is not material for the report. ]petition allowed. .