JUDGMENT Roy, J.: This appeal is directed against the decision passed by the learned trial in Civil Order No. 1098(W) of 1986. By the aforesaid order dated 29th January, 1986, the learned trial Judge dismissed the writ petition moved by the appellant Inter alia, challenging the second show cause notice issued to him for showing cause as to why his service should not be terminated in connection with the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him on the basis of the charge-sheet issued in connection with the recovery of 106 pcs. of G. C. Sheets from the left side of Railway Track of down loop line in between Jonai Road Railway Station and Majherhat Railway Station on 22nd December, 1933. The charge levelled against the appellant was to the effect that he was grossly negligent of duty in that while be was on camping duty at JOX on 21.12.83 and 22.12.83 he miserably failed to prevent and detect theft of 106 pcs. of G. C. Sheets from Wagon No. NR 23627 Ex SCOB siding on 12.12.83 at 19.50 hrs. at Jonai Railway Station. The short facts relating to the said disciplinary proceeding may be slated hereunder :-The appellant Shri Paramhans Pandey who was a Constable in the Railway Protection Force, was on duty at Jonai Road Railway Station yard on 21st December, 1983 along with other Constables. His duty hours was from 8 hrs. in the morning up to the 20 hrs. at night. The goods train carrying the G. C. Sheets arrived at Jonai Road Railway Station at about 19.50 hrs and the said goods train left at 22.42 hrs, on 21st December, 1983. Some time on 22nd December, 1983, 106 pcs. of G. C. Sheets were discovered by the side of Railway track in between the Jonai Road Railway Station and Majherhat Railway Station and it was also found that the seal of the wagon in which the said G. C. Sheets has been booked were tampered with and the seals on the left side of the wagon could not be found when the train reached the next station. It appears that as Shri Pandey was on duty at Jonai Railway Station when the goods train had reached and as it was the duty to check up the seals of the wagon and to prevent any pilferage from the wagons, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for the alleged theft of 106 G. C. Sheets. Shri Pandey in answer to his second show came notice had submitted that his duty along with others came to end only 10 minutes after the arrival of the train, i. e. at 20 hours and the pilferage might had taken place when he was not on duty and al such the disciplinary proceeding should not have been initiated against him. Shri Pandey also complained that such pilferage was also likely to have taken place in between lanai Road Railway Station and Majherhat Railway Station but no proper enquiry had been made to that effect. It may be noted here that along with Shri Pandey, his other companion Constables were also proceeded with departmentally for the said pilferage. Similarly, the other constables who relieved Shri Pandey at Jonai Road Railway Station after his duty came to an end at 20 hrs. were also proceeded with for the said loss of 106 G. C. Sheets. The learned trial Judge dismissed the writ petition, inter alia, on the view that as the findings made in the disciplinary proceedings were not perverse, interference, by the writ was not called for and it was not necessary for the respondents to file and affidavit-in-opposition and to bring necessary papers on record. 2. Mr. Das, learned Counsel for the appellant has contended at the bearing of the appeal that the duty of Shri Pandey at the Jonai Road Railway Station wall only for 10 minutes after the arrival of the train on 21st December, 1983. 3. It is nobody's case that the pilferage had taken place when Shri Pandey was on duty. Admittedly, the goods train remained in station for about three hours and left the station at 22/42 hours when some other constables of the Railway Protection Force were on duty. Moreover, the G. C. Sheets in question had been found lying by the side of the railway tracks in between the two railway stations and it is not quite unlikely that the pilferage had taken place while the train moved. Moreover, the G. C. Sheets in question had been found lying by the side of the railway tracks in between the two railway stations and it is not quite unlikely that the pilferage had taken place while the train moved. Unless there is a specific evidence from which a reasonable inference can be made about the complicity of Shri Pandey for the said pilferage of 106 sheets of G. C. Sheets, on more surmises and conjectures no disciplinary proceeding should have been initiated and in any event on the basis of the materials on record there was no occasion to issue the second show cause notice for inflicting punishment on Shri Pandey. Mr. Das bas submitted, that in the disciplinary proceeding. the evidence Act is no, applicable but the basic principles of fair-play and natural justice are to be followed in the disciplinary proceeding and the requirement of proof cannot be substituted by surmises and conjectures. Mr. Das has further submitted that the law is well-settled that until and unless there is an evidence from which a reasonable inference of fact may be made, no punishment can be inflicted on surmises and conjectures. In the instant case the railway administration has proceeded on surmises and conjectures from the very beginning and precisely for the said reasons, not only Shri Pandey or his companions but even the other constables who relieved Shri Pandey and his companions after their duty hours were over had also been proceeded with. Such action clearly demonstrates that the railway administration was not sure about the complicity either of Shri Pandey and his companions or their relievers. In the instant case the train had stayed for about three hours at Jonal Road Station and within ten minutes after the arrival of the train, the duty of Shri Pandey came to an end No evidence has been laid to the effect that while Shri Pandey was on duty the wagon was interfered with and the seals were detected in defective position and Shri Pandey failed to discharge his duties in not detecting such tampering with the seals of the wagon. In such circumstance, simply because some G. C. Sheets had been found lying by the side of the railway tracks in between the two stations when the train had left, Shri Pandey cannot be proceeded with and on the face of the evidences adduced in the disciplinary proceeding there was no reason to issue the second show cause notice. Mr. Das bas submitted that normally against the second show cause notice interference by the writ court is not called for but if on the face of the material, it can be amply demonstrated that such proceeding cannot but fail, the agony of a delinquent, should not be prolonged by allowing the abortive disciplinary proceeding to continue because by such process the delinquent employee cannot but suffer serious prejudice by the adjudication to be made in such abortive proceeding. He bas submitted that in the instant case an unsatisfactory state of at fairs bas been revealed and on the basis of the materials disclosed in the disciplinary proceeding, there was no occasion to proceed any further against Shri Pandey and the issuance of the second show cause notice was wholly unjustified and was therefore required to be quashed. 4. Mr. Bshaskar Ghose, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, has submitted that although the duty of Shri Pandey was up to 20 hours on the 21st December, 1983, there is evidence to the effect that even after such 20 hours Shri Pandey remained in duty for sometime and the charge was handed over to his successor after some time. From the seal checking report it transpires that the rivets on the left side of the wagon in question where G. C. Sheets had been loaded were not in proper position and on the left side it was 1/3 and not 3/3. When the train reached the next station none of the rivets seals on the left side could be found Since it was the specific duty of Shri Pandey and the other constables to detect any violence with the rivets of the wagon in question and as Shri Pandey failed and neglected to report that rivets or the left side of the wagon in question were not in fact, he can be proceeded with for dereliction of duty. Mr. Mr. Ghose has further submitted that in a case like this it is not expected that there should be a direct evidence but from the materials disclosed in the disciplinary proceeding it can be reasonably inferred that the seals in question of the wagon had been interferred with when the train arrived at Jonai Road Station and Shri Pandey was on duty at the relevant time, and there had been pilferage. Hence, in the disciplinary proceeding Shri Pandey was squarely answerable and the issuance of the second show clause notice was quite justified. Mr. Ghose bas further submitted that no interference at this intermediate stage should be made by this court. Shri Pandey will have the full opportunity to make proper representation in answer to the second show cause notice about the relevant facts intended to be relied on by him. Accordingly, interference by the writ court at this stage is not called for and on that score also, no interference against the dismissal of the writ petition should be made in the appeal.s 5. After considering the facts and the circumstances of the case and hearing the learned Counsel for the parties it appears to us that the railway administration initially could not pin point the responsibility any of the constables who was on duty at Jonal Road Station during the period when the goods train was on the said station on the 21st December, 1983. The goods train arrived at 19/50 hours and stayed in the station upto 22/42 hours. There is evidence that the shunting operation was also done in the said station. Admittedly, the duty hours of Shri Pandey was upto 20 hours. It therefore means that within ten minutes from the arrival of the goods train at the Jonai Road Station the duty of Shri Pandey came to an end. It transpires from the seal checking report that after arrival of the train it was noticed that the rivets in the wagon in question on the left side was 1/3 and not 3/3 as .pointed out by Mr. Ghose. But it has not been indicated that when such checking was made after the arrival of the train. It transpires from the seal checking report that after arrival of the train it was noticed that the rivets in the wagon in question on the left side was 1/3 and not 3/3 as .pointed out by Mr. Ghose. But it has not been indicated that when such checking was made after the arrival of the train. Until and unless such checking was made within a few minutes from the time of arrival of the goods train when Shri Pandey was on duty, it cannot be said that during his duty hours the seal rivets were found to be defective on the left side of the wagon in question. Admittedly it was the duty of the other constables relieving Shri Pandey when the goods train remained in station for the most part of its stay. In our view Mr. Das is justified in his submissions that in the departmental proceeding there must be evidence on the basis of which a reasonable inference of fact may be made by the disciplinary authority. Some of the basic evidences are missing and it is left in the realm of surmises and conjectures. It will not be proper to proceed on surmises and conjectures to penalise any delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceeding. The requirement of proof cannot be substituted by any amount of surmise and conjecture. As in the instant case it appears to us that no sufficient materials have been revealed in the disciplinary proceeding on the basis of which a reasonable inference about the complicity of Shri Pandey on the charges levelled again him can be made, we do not think that any useful purpose will be served by proceeding further from the stage of second show cause notice. We therefore allow this appeal and quash the disciplinary proceeding including the impugned second show cause notice and orders passed therein. As the petitioner bas attained the age of superannuation he should be paid his post retirement benefits without any further delay. Hazari, J.: I agree.