S. G. DODDAKALE GOWDA, J. ( 1 ) IN a joint departmental enquiry held against petitioner and one Papanna, charge framed reads thus :"gross misconduct in demanding the payment of Rs. 251- by way of illegal gratification from one K. Muniraju on 3-5-1977, 4-5-77 and 6-5-77 respectively at Hebbal O. P. for the purpose of returning the Military Discharge Certificate etc. , of M. Muniraju and which documents had been taken possession of illegally from the said muniraju by delinquent No. 2 (P. C. 2775) on the night of 1-5-77 and thereafter illegally retained by delinquent No. 1 (H. C. 441) and in accepting the said illegal gratification on 6-5-77 evening from Muniraju, one Gangaiah son of Thimmaiah of Hebbal. " ( 2 ) ASSISTANT Commissioner of police, Malleswaram Division Police station, appointed as a specially empowered authority after holding an enquiry recorded a finding of guilt. Deputy Commissioner of Police (Law and Order) Bangalore, as a Disciplinary authority, provisionally accepting find: ings, issued a show cause notice enclosing a copy of the report On consideration of explanation, offered affirmed provisional order. Relevant portion of order reads thus :"the charges of detaining the documents from P. W. 2 by the A. P. Os. with the motive of extracting money and demanding and accepting illegal gratification from P. W. 2 is clearly proved against the A. P. Os. beyond any reasonable doubt. I hold them guilty of the charges. "and ordered dismissal of petitioner from service. ( 3 ) APPEAL presented to Commissioner of Police and revision to Govern- merit have been dismissed confirming order of Disciplinary Authority. ( 4 ) FIRST part of the charge extracted above, refers to demand made by petitioner on 3-5-1977, 4-5-1977 and 6-5- 1977 for return of certificates seized from M. Muniraju. Second part of the charge deals with illegal detention and acceptance of gratification by first delinquent official-Papanna. But. finding of Disciplinary Authority is that demand and acceptance by both is proved. This finding is inconsistant with charge. ( 5 ) MORE than anything else finding of Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary authority is that Ganga, a coolie, was an agent of these two delinquent officials and receipt of money by Ganga tantamounts to acceptance of bribe be petitioner. Contention of petitioner is that finding is based on conjucture and surmises in the absence of evidence of ganga must be struck down. Contention of petitioner is that finding is based on conjucture and surmises in the absence of evidence of ganga must be struck down. in case of acceptance of such a finding, no Government servant is safe and any body can be legged in, as an offender or be involved in acceptance of bribe, that too, having regard to his status who is under no obligation of petitioner or in any way linked with discharge of their duties. Sri S. V. Narasimhan, learned High court Government Pleader, tried to sustain the finding contending that conclusion based on overwhelming evidence cannot be interfered with in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) OFFENCE complained of is a criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty. To constitute an offence of acceptance of illegal gratification either under Section 161 I. P. C. or under section 5-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, essential ingredients required to be established a:e delinquent (i) must be a public servant (ii) should accept gratification for himself; and (iii) gratification should be as a motive or reward for showing or forbearing to show favour or djsfavour to any person. Connotation of acceptance of illegal gratification as defined in these Acts may safely be adopted, as it cannot be different in departmental enquiry to prove misconduct. Assuming for the sake of argument that first and last are established, still there is no proof to satisfy second ingredient. Acceptance of bribe by Ganga, who has nothing to do with deliquent official can by no stretch of imagination be considered as acceptance of illegal gratification by petitioner and conclusion that acceptance by Ganga must be treated as acceptance of illegal gratification by petitioner is perverse. Finding that ganga is an agent is purely based on inferences and conjuctures. Ganga, by accepting money from Muniraju might have cheated or deceived him, but petitioner cannot be vicariously held responsible. In the absence of evidence either of Ganga or petitioner admitting his relationship punishment imposed for misconduct-re-acceptance of illegal gratification must be held to be illegal and perverse. if public servants are punished on such finding there will be no safety for Government Servants. ( 7 ) COMMISSIONER of police, in appeal, except stating that there is no good ground to interfere with the order of disciplinary authority has not assigned reasons for dismissing appeal. So also. if public servants are punished on such finding there will be no safety for Government Servants. ( 7 ) COMMISSIONER of police, in appeal, except stating that there is no good ground to interfere with the order of disciplinary authority has not assigned reasons for dismissing appeal. So also. Government while dismissing revision petition except reiterating reasons given by Disciplinary Authority has not assigned any cogent reasons to reach as to the conclusion how Ganga can be treated as an agent of petitioner and petitioner be held responsible for money received by Ganga. ( 8 ) FOR the reasons stated above, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order in so far as it relates to petitioner is hereby quashed. Petrtioner is entitled to all consequential benefits Rule made absolute. --- *** --- .