G. C. Jain, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment would also dispose of Civil Writ No. 756 of 1972 (Chandkumarv. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others) asthe questions involved in both the writ petitions are same. ( 2 ) MUNICIPAL Corporation of Delhi (for short "the Corporation ),respondent No. 1, is maintaining a number of primary schools. For purposes of supervision and control of the educational activities the area of thecorporation is divided into zones. The examinations of fifth class studentsof their primary schools in four subjects, namely, Arithmatic, Hindi, Socialstudies and General Science are conducted by an examination board constituted by the Corporation. The test for the fifth subject, namely. Art, istaken by the teachers in the Schools itself After compiling the results theresult sheets are sent to the Zonal Office by the examination board. Fromthere these are collected by the Headmasters concerned or by the teachersauthorised by them. After the result is brought to the school the marksobtained by the students in the Art subject are added in the result sheet. Marks of all the subjects are then entered in a register maintained by theschools. The register is then taken to the Zonal Office for checking andapproval. After the result is approved by the area Inspector of Schools (Zonal) it is announced by the Headmasters of the schools concerned. ( 3 ) ONE Suraj Bhan and the petitioners in the petitions were employedas Assistant Teachers in Municipal Corporation Middle School, Moti Nagareast-11, in the year 1968-69. Shri Sant Ram Bhardwaj was the Headmasterof the said School. The result of the fifth class for the academic year 196869 was announced as usual probably on 30/04/1969. After. some dayssant Ram Bhardwaj, Headmaster, was called in the office by the Schoolinspector concerned along with his result sheet. On reaching there theinspector expressed some doubts about the marks of Hindi subject obtainedby his student with roll No. 14341 and asked the Headmaster to get thisclarified. The result sheet was compared with the duplicate copy by Mr. A. N. Khose and it was found that there was a change in the marks ofstudents with roll numbers 15236, 15235, 15315, 15336, 15339 besides 15341. After a preliminary enquiry the petitioners and one Suraj Bhan weie chargedfor having, in collaboration amongst themselves, increased the marks obtainedby students with the above roll numbers and given illegal promotion to them. A. N. Khose and it was found that there was a change in the marks ofstudents with roll numbers 15236, 15235, 15315, 15336, 15339 besides 15341. After a preliminary enquiry the petitioners and one Suraj Bhan weie chargedfor having, in collaboration amongst themselves, increased the marks obtainedby students with the above roll numbers and given illegal promotion to them. The enquiry was held by Shri Randhir Singh who vide his report (Annexurea) exonerated Suraj Bhan. He, however, found the charges proved againstthe present petitioners. ( 4 ) ON examining the report of the enquiry officer and the enquiryproceedings the Deputy Commissioner of the Corporation served a notice onthe petitioners to show cause as to why the penalty of removnt from servicebe not inflicted upon them. The petitioners submitted their reply in responseto the show cause notice. The proposed punishment was however confirmedby the Deputy Commissioner vide order (Annexure G ). In appeal thecommissioner, however, reduced the penalty to stoppage of three annualincrements with future effect, vide order dated January 9, 1971 communi-cated to the petitioners by letter dated 16/01/1971. ( 5 ) FEELING aggrieved the petitioners filed these writ petitions forquashing the impugned orders The main ground raised by Bhagwan Das,petitioner, is that there was no evidence to prove that he had tampered withthe result sheet. The finding arrived at was perverse and could not bereached by any reasonable man on the basis of the evidence before theenquiry officer. Chand Kumar, besides the above plea, also alleged that thesuspension was violative of Article 5 of the Service Regulations and that thedeputy Commissioner was not competent to impose the penalty of removalfrom service. The orders made by the dismissing authority and the appellateauthority were not speaking orders and the enquiry was violative of theprinciples of natural justice. ( 6 ) THESE petitions were opposed by the Corporation. It was averredthat there was no error of law or fact apparent on the face of the record. The powers had been exercised by the respondents within their jurisdiction. The departmental enquiry had been held in accordance with the relevantrules and principles of natural justice and the findings of the departmentalauthorities were final and the writ petition was not maintainable. Thematerial averments made by the petitioners were denied. It was averredthat these petitioners handled the result sheets at various stages. The marksof Art subject in the result sheets were added by them. Thematerial averments made by the petitioners were denied. It was averredthat these petitioners handled the result sheets at various stages. The marksof Art subject in the result sheets were added by them. They checked andsigned the result sheets. The findings of the enquiry officer were based onevidence. ( 7 ) THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners isthat the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse and could not berecorded by any reasonable person on the evidence before him. ( 8 ) IT is settled law that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction cannotsit as a court of appeal against the orders of disciplinary authorities. Itcannot go into the disputed questions of fact and give a finding of the truthor otherwise of an allegation or counter-allegation. It cannot even considerthe question whether the evidence was sufficient or adequate to support aparticular conclusion. This is a matter within the competence of the authority which dealt with the case. However, the High Court must enquirewhether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned finding orthe conclusion reached. The proceedings before the disciplinary authorityare quasi-judicial in nature and the High Court can definitely enquirewhether the order is based on no evidence. It is not necessary that in orderto attack the impugned order on the ground that it is based on no evidencemala fide exercise of power by the disciplinary authority should be alleged. (See Union of India v. H. C. Gael, A. I. R. 1964 S. G. 364 ). ( 9 ) AS observed above, the charge against the petitioners and Surajbhan was that they in collaboration amongst themselves increased the marksobtained by six students of class fifth examination held in April 1969 andgave illegal promotion to the said students. Admittedly there was no directevidence to prove that any of the petitioners tampered with the record andincreased the marks. The finding of the enquiry officer is based on circumstantial evidence. At the outset I would state that in a departmental enquiryit is not necessary that the circumstantial evidence should be of such acharacter that it was wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the delinquentemployees and was consistent only with the guilt as was required in acriminal case. At the same time it should be such that a reasonable personcan base a finding on it. At the same time it should be such that a reasonable personcan base a finding on it. In the present case the finding of the enquiry officeris based on three circumstances, namely, (i) the petitioner went to the Zonaloffice to collect the result, (ii) they tabulated the result and for that purposesheet was handed over to them and (iii) both of them checked the result and signed as checkers on the result sheets. Passingly it was also observed thatchand Kumar had also gone to the Zonal Office to collect the result withoutany directions to that effect from the Headmaster. It may be noted that theheadmaster had admitted that he had been paid his conveyance allowancefor the purpose. ( 10 ) NOW it is to be determined whether a presumption of guilt canbe raised against the petitioners on the basis of the above-mentioned threecircumstances. These circumstances only lead to the conclusion that theresult sheet in question was handled by the petitioners and they had theopportunity to tamper with the same. From this alone it cannot be said thatit was tampered with by them independently or in collaboration with eachother. Admittedly the result is prepared by the examination board. Inother words the copy of the result which was sent to the Zonal Office wasprepared by the examination board. After preparing the result sheet it wassent to the Zonal Office. After reaching the Zonal Office it was handedover to the petitioners. The petitioners admittedly handed over the resultsheets to the Head masters There was possibility of tampering with it atany of these stages. Therefore, no presumption can be raised that thetampering with was done by the petitioners independently or in collaborationwith each other. The finding of the enquiry officer, in my view, is perverse,being based on no evidence. The impugned orders were, therefore, liableto be quashed. ( 11 ) IN conclusion, I accept the writ petitions and quash the impugnedorders. The increments of the petitioners stopped because of the impugnedorders would be allowed and they would be paid their arrears of pay withinsix months from the date of this order. The parties are, however, left to beartheir own costs.