ORDER This writ petition is directed against an order of removed passed by the appropriate authority and an appellate order passed by the appellate authority as against the writ petitioner. 2. From the records it appears that the petitioner was appointed as Rakshak by the Assistant Security Officer, Eastern Railway, Chittaranjan Locomotive Works and posted at Chittaranjn. 3. On 1st July, 1977 HR/Driver Ramjee Burah was caught with some materials at G. M. Gate in Truck No. WBR-1A. It was alleged that the driver entered the workshop at about 6-30 hours for getting right head light of the truck repaired in the T.P.T. shop and at about 6-30 hours the driver approached the G. M. Gate with the above Truck from inside the workshop. Rakshak Indrajit Tewary and Audesh Singh stopped the truck by hand signal. Indrajit Tewary noticed two uniformed Rikshaks fled away from the cabin of the truck inside the shop but could not recognize them. Officer-in-Charge on receiving the above incidents rushed on the spot and met Inspector Protection Force and as per his instruction materials were seized. On the said date, it has further been alleged, that the driver while making a statement before the Officer-in-Charge recorded that at about 6-30 hours he entered the shop for repairing but was told to come later on. In the meantime, the driver felt the call of nature and went to attend the nearby lavatory and came to the truck at about 7.00 hours and at that juncture it was further stated that three Rakshaks including the petitioner requested him to allow them to keep some materials like Tawa, Chula etc. but as he did not allow them, three Rakshaks forcibly kept the materials in the truck and went away towards the G. M. Gate A fact finding enquiry was set up wherein the statements of relevant witnesses were recorded. Subsequently, however, on 9th of August, 1977 a charge-sheet was issued as against the writ petitioner wherein the statement of allegations recorded serious misconduct. The statement of allegation recorded that the petitioner loaded unauthorisedly some materials which the petitioner was carrying on the truck No. WBR-1A near TPT at about 7-30 hours inside the workshop which was detected at the administrative gate where the petitioner managed to escape. A reply was submitted to the charge sheet denying the charges. The statement of allegation recorded that the petitioner loaded unauthorisedly some materials which the petitioner was carrying on the truck No. WBR-1A near TPT at about 7-30 hours inside the workshop which was detected at the administrative gate where the petitioner managed to escape. A reply was submitted to the charge sheet denying the charges. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and came to a finding of 'not guilty' as against the petitioner and one Madan Turi. A categorical finding of guilt was arrived at as against the driver Ramjee Burah. The Enquiry Officer recorded the evidence of P.W.1 Rakshak Indrajit Tewary. In the report of the Enquiry Officer it appear that in answer to the question raised by the defence helper. Indrajit Tewary said that be saw two other persons who were sitting on the driver's cabin managed to escape from other side gate door but he could not recognise them, but they were in uniform having R.P.F. badges. Tewary went on to say further that he inquired about two persons who escaped from driver's cabin but the driver did not say anything about the identity. 4. P.W.2 Rakshak Audesh Singh was also examined and in answering to the question put by the defence helper Stated that he did not notice any person on the truck except the driver. P.W.3 as is recorded in the enquiry report categorically stated that he held the petitioner and another responsible since the driver during interrogation gave out the names of the petitioner and another. The Enquiry Officer came to a definite finding that P.W.3 could not substantiate the charges against the Rakshaks. The Enquiry Officer further came to a finding that none of the PWs either noticed the petitioner to load the seized property on the truck nor sitting on the truck and the statement of the driver has been proved contradictory and motivated. In his report the Enquiry Officer came to a finding that the driver gave out the names of these two Rakshaks before Sri R. B. Singh which can be taken as an afterthought in order to absolve himself from the responsibility. The Enquiry Officer also recorded that similarly there is no recorded evidence nor anybody noticed them to load the materials in the truck. The Enquiry Officer also recorded that similarly there is no recorded evidence nor anybody noticed them to load the materials in the truck. The only evidence available on record as stated by the Enquiry Officer is the evidence of Audesh Singh who has deposed to the effect that he saw Rakshak V. D. Singh to go inside the main shop by a bicycle at about 6-45 hours which according to the Enquiry Officer was not sufficient to judge that he loaded the materials in the truck and was carrying rod materials by truck. Subsequently, however, the disciplinary authority served notice dated 4th December 1979, inter alia, stating therein that be did not agree with the conclusion reached in respect of the charge framed against the petitioner and as such provisionally came to a conclusion that the petitioner is not a fit person to be retained in service and a penalty of removal was proposed. 5. It appears from the order annexed to the show cause notice that strong reliance was placed on the statement of the driver that the petitioner loaded the materials and were sitting in the cabin. The driver’s statement as recorded by the Officer-in-Charge categorically records to the following effect “In the meantime the HR/Driver felt the call of nature and went to attend the nearby lavatory. After nature’s call he came to the truck at about 7.00 hours and when he happened to start the truck to Rakshaks of AW/CLW namely 2128 Basisth Singh and RK 8833 Bikramaditya Singh and one more whom he could recognize but did not know the name and later on identified as R. K. Madan Turi/AW/CLW along with other in presence of IPF(AW/CLW and SI Sri Sarka/AW came to the truck and requested the HR/Driver to allow them to keep to some material like Tawa, Chula, grease etc but he did not allow them and they forcibly kept the material as seized in the truck and went away towards the G. M. Gate”. Incidently it is to be noted that the articles were seized from inside the tool box under the driver’s sit and they consist of 85 Nos of welding rods, 10 Nos of iron plates, 1 No iron Towa with handle, about 2 Kg iron wire, 6 Nos of chulha made of iron plates, 2 nos. tin containers containing about 3 kg & 4 kg grease each, 2 Nos. tin containers containing about 3 kg & 4 kg grease each, 2 Nos. around iron plates, 1 MS plate, about 50 Kg coal and one old bicycle. The Disciplinary authority also took note of the evidence of the Audesh Singh who it is stated to have seen V. D. Singh going inside the main shop by a bicycle at about 6-45 hours. 6. It is true that in a domestic enquiry strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply and all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. (State of Haryana v. Ratan Singh reported in AIR 1977 SC 1512 ) and it is also well settled that though direct evidence is always entertained to be the basic evidence but that does not mean that circumstantial evidence cannot be looked into and direct evidence as well as circumstantial evidence would be legal evidence which can be taken not of in a domestic enquiry, so long as the evidence has a probative value and nexus it would be relevant evidence. (vide State Bank of India v. J. D. Jain reported in (1977) 2 LLJ 1041) 7. The question, therefore, falls for determination in this case s to whether evidence tendered before the domestic tribunal can be termed or treated as legal evidence. 8. Admittedly, there is no direct and independent evidence a regards the involvement of the petitioner in loading the articles seized as well as the transportation of the same in the truck, apart from the evidence of the driver. One of the officers who is intercepted the truck had categorically has stated that he did not find anybody on the cabin of the truck and the other has stated that he saw two R.P.F. personnel escaped from the truck though could not be identified. The driver alone is the person who has stated subsequently that the petitioner forcibly put the materials on to the truck without his knowledge and consent and the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority solely relied upon the evidence of the driver. There is in fact no corroboration of the s line through any other witness. The driver alone is the person who has stated subsequently that the petitioner forcibly put the materials on to the truck without his knowledge and consent and the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority solely relied upon the evidence of the driver. There is in fact no corroboration of the s line through any other witness. As regards the credibility of the driver’s evidence which I presently deal, the Enquiry Officer categorically stated that the driver's evidence ought not to be relied upon solely since his obvious attempt would be to avoid the liability in the matter. This aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the disciplinary authority. The evidence of the driver in my view, ought not to have been admitted in regard to the guilt of the petitioner. There must be an independent and cogent evidence connecting the misconduct of the delinquent officer. From the records it appears there is no evidence of loading the articles on to the lorry. Circumstantial evidence though admissible but it must form a complete chain of event so as to foist the liability on the charged officer. Evidence of entering on to the Shop premises at about 6-45 A.M. by itself does not suggest the involvement of the petitioner as regards the loading of the materials in the truck. 9. In that view of the matter it appears that the disciplinary authority his proceeded on no evidence at all and as such has committed an error of law capable of being rectified in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is now well settled however that the High Court would not be justified in reappraisal of the evidence and would not interfere with the order of the inferior tribunal even if a different conclusion be reached on the state of evidence. But it is now also well settled that if the inferior tribunal proceeds on no evidence or on inadmissible evidence the writ court would be within its jurisdiction to interfere. The driver is in the position of a co-accused and the disciplinary authority without all independent corroboration ought not to have relied upon the evidence of the driver only and discredit the finding of the Enquiry Officer. The driver is in the position of a co-accused and the disciplinary authority without all independent corroboration ought not to have relied upon the evidence of the driver only and discredit the finding of the Enquiry Officer. In my view, the evidence on record has no probative value and the driver's evidence cannot be termed to be legal evidence capable of being interpreted to be sufficient evidence to foist the liability on the petitioner. 10. In the view of the matter, there exists an error of law and as such I set aside the finding of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. 11. Since the elaborate submissions have been made by both the parties at the hearing of this writ petition in regard to merits and since I have also gone into the merits of the case I am of the view, that no useful purpose would be served in remitting the matter to the disciplinary authority for further consideration. More so by reason of the lack of any legal evidence to foist the responsibility on to the petitioner. In the premises the order of removal from service is set aside and quashed and the petitioner will be deemed to be in service till date with full service benefits and salaries. If in the meantime, however, the petitioner got himself engaged within alternative job he would be entitled to full salary and benefits upto the date when he has joined new post or assignment and thereafter half of the salaries till date. The Rule is therefore, made absolute. There shall however, be no order as to cost. Rule made absolute.