I have heard Mr. SM Chalcraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AC Debnath, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner, Shri Subash Chandra Banik, HV Driver, Tripura Road Transport Corporation Ltd on 17th June, 1987 was carrying Bus No. TRS 543 from Ampi to Agartala and while on way at about 4 PM caused accident with a Motor Cycle resulting in the death of one person on the spot and bodily injuries to one lady. The petitioner faced departmental proceedings on two charges. Firstly, he drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, amounting to misconduct. Secondly, after the accident he did not stop the vehicle on the spot, left the place of the accident and fled away, acting in a most inhuman and unkind manner, amounting to misconduct. In inquiry he has been found guilty on both the charges and by way of punishment his pay scale has been reduced to his initial scale of in pay by the impugned order dated 16.11.1998 and thereafter the appeal preferred by him has been rejected. Hence the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the punishment. 3. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the findings of the Inquiring Officer are not based on evidence, in fact there is no evidence on the record to substantiate the charges. On the basis of the evidence adduced in the case the petitioner cannot be adjudged guilty and as such the impugned orders call for interference. 4. It is undisputed in the case that on the relevant date and time the petitioner was carrying the aforesaid bus on duty, which met accident with a Motor Cycle near Champaknagar (East side of the Champaknagar Bazar). Three witnesses, , namely, Shri Bipul Majumdar, TS, PW 1 Shri Chinta Haran Barman, Bus Conductor PW 2 and Shri Bhabatosh Raha, S & V Officer, TRTC, PW 3 were examined during the course of inquiry. As has transpired, all the three witnesses are not eye witnesses of the accident. Two witnesses Shri Bipul Majumdar, TS PW 1 and Shri Bhabatosh Raha, S & V Officer, TRTC PW 3 arrived at the spot after the accident. Shri Bipul Majumdar, PW 1 has stated that after discussion with the police station authorities he came to know that the accident was due to rash driving of the vehicle by the driver. Two witnesses Shri Bipul Majumdar, TS PW 1 and Shri Bhabatosh Raha, S & V Officer, TRTC PW 3 arrived at the spot after the accident. Shri Bipul Majumdar, PW 1 has stated that after discussion with the police station authorities he came to know that the accident was due to rash driving of the vehicle by the driver. Thus the evidence of this witness is hearsay evidence. Shri Chinta Haran Barman, Bus Conductor PW 2 has stated that he did not see the accident at all. The observation of the Inquiring Officer that near the place of accident the road is wide and straight and as such their is no possibility of accident except on rash driving, is merely based on surmise and conjecture. 5. In the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the Tripura Road Transport Corporation Ltd took the specific plea and contested the claim, alleging that there was no negligence on the part of the petitioner in driving the vehicle and the alleged accident was not the result of rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. In a criminal case under section 279/338/304 A IPC the petitioner has also not been found guilty and has been acquitted. 6. Thus there is no evidence on the record which may lead the Court to the conclusion that the alleged accident was the result of careless and negligent driving of the petitioner, in a way the finding of the Inquiring Officer can be termed as perverse. In Kuldeep Singh vs. The Commissioner of Police & others, AIR 1999 SC 677 the Supreme Court has held: “Normally the High Court and Supreme Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of 'guilt' is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act g upon it, the order would be perverse.” The findings of the Inquiring Officer are not based on evidence, the evidence as adduced before him is highly unreliable and the order passed in the inquiry, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges and consequential punishment awarded to the petitioner are not sustainable in law and call for interference. 7. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 16th November, 1998 (Annexure 4) and order dated 22nd April, 1999 (Annexure 7) are hereby quashed. The petitioner is hereby declared entitled to all benefits including arrears of salary etc. Costs on parties.