S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner while serving as Sub inspector of Police in the service of the State government of Andhra Pradesh, after holding a regular departmental enquiry before the Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings (for short tdp ) was dismissed from service vide G. O. Ms. No. 63, Home (SC. A) Department, dated 9-2-1996 as a disciplinary measure. The petitioner being aggrieved by the Government Order g. O. Ms. No. 63, dated 9-2-1996, instituted o. A. No. 1744 of 1996 before the Andhra pradesh Administrative Tribunal (for short apat ), Hyderabad. The Tribunal by its judgment and order dated 14-10-1997 dismissed the Original Application and affirmed the disciplinary action taken by the government. Hence, this writ petition under article 226 assailing the legality and validity of the order of the learned Tribunal. ( 2 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner would strenuously contend that both the tdp and the APAT have committed serious error in law in overlooking the admission made by the prosecution witnesses themselves that the person who received bribe in the police station is not the charged officer and someone else. The learned counsel would highlight that the finding recorded by the TDP as well as the APAT is based on surmises and conjectures and suspicion and not on legally admissible evidence. The learned Counsel would contend that suspicion would never take the place of proof to sustain the impugned order. On the other hand, learned Government pleader for Services II support the impugned order. ( 3 ) IN the context of the rival contentions, the only point that arises for our consideration is whether the TDP as well as apat have committed any error in ignoring the say of the prosecution witnesses in the regular departmental enquiry before the apat that the bribe was not received by the charged officer and someone else and whether the factual findings recorded by the tribunals are based on some legally admissible evidence or not or they suffer from vice of perversity. ( 4 ) THE following are the two charges framed against the petitioner-delinquent. ( 4 ) THE following are the two charges framed against the petitioner-delinquent. Charge No. 1: That you, while working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Pakala from 6-7-1981 to 24-5-1982 actuated by corrupt motives and in abuse of your official position, with the assistance of your staff Sri K. Sampath H. C. 130 of your Police Station and other staff members, forcibly and illegally brought one Sri R. Ramachandran, Proprietor of shanker Metal Stores, Sapthagiri Metal stores, Chittoor to Pakala Police station from Chittoor and detained him in the police station on 22-8-1981 falsely alleging against him that he received the stolen property copper wire from the culprits. You further demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 1,400. 00 from the said r. Ramachandran in the presence of sri K. V. Vijay Kumar and Nagaraju on 28-8-1981 when there is no case pending against him and let off him without taking any action, and thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2 (b) of the Rules framed under the A. P. Civil Services (Disciplinary Proceedings Tribunals) act, 1960. Charge No. 2: That you while working as Sub-Inspector of Police, Pakala from 6-7-1981 to 24-5-1982 actuated by corrupt motives and in abuse of your official position, with the assistance of sri K. Sampath, H. C. 130 illegally and forcibly brought Sri G. Narsimloo, the proprietor of the Maheswari Steel house, Chittoor to Pakala Police station in vehicle on 28-8-1981 morning by falsely alleging against him as he is the receiver of the stolen copper wire and detained him illegally under police custody till 2-9-81. You also demanded and accepted a bribe of rs. 3,000/- from the wife of the said g. Narsimloo on 2-9-1981 and released him from police custody and no case was put up against him by you and that thereby you are guilty of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2 (b) of the rules framed under the Andhra pradesh Civil Services (Disciplinary proceedings Tribunal) Act, 1960? ( 5 ) THE prosecution in order to prove charge No. 1 examined P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3, whereas in proving Charge No. 2, P. Ws. 9 to 12 were examined. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 is the complainant as regards charge No1l. ( 5 ) THE prosecution in order to prove charge No. 1 examined P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3, whereas in proving Charge No. 2, P. Ws. 9 to 12 were examined. ( 6 ) P. W. 1 is the complainant as regards charge No1l. He in his evidence before the tribunal has stated that on 28-8-1981, the charged officer came to the shop of the p. W. I and forcibly took him to the Police station and detained him in the police station till he agreed to pay bribe of Rs. 1,500. 00. He also stated that on 29-8-1981 he along with p. W. 2 and P. W. 3 went to the police station; in the first instance, P. Ws. 2 and 3 entered the chamber of the charged officer and pleaded with him not to take bribe from P. W. 1 and their plea fell in vain and they came out of the chamber and advised P. W. I to pay the bribe and at that stage, the Head Constable emerged and took the bribe. This version of p. W. I is squarely corroborated by the oral testimony of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 also. As regards organising a sum of Rs. 1,400. 00 that was paid to the constable on 29-8-1981, p. W. 5, the wife of P. W. 1 was examined and her evidence goes to show that after pledging certain gold ornaments belonging to her, she borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 in order to pay the same to the police. P. W. 4 is r. Satyanarayana, who is the cousin of p. W. 1, who carried the gold ear-rings and one gold vanki ring and pledged the same and borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00. It is true that in the regular enquiry conducted before the APAT, the witnesses P. Ws. 1, 2 and 3 have stated that when they paid bribe on 29-8-1981, it was paid to a person and not the charged officer. This retraction of these witnesses was disbelieved by the APAT, firstly, because these witnesses were treated as hostile and secondly, because of the reason that the Pakala Police Station is one s. I. Police Station and therefore, these discrepancies would not aid to bring home the plea of the charged officer. This retraction of these witnesses was disbelieved by the APAT, firstly, because these witnesses were treated as hostile and secondly, because of the reason that the Pakala Police Station is one s. I. Police Station and therefore, these discrepancies would not aid to bring home the plea of the charged officer. It is also very relevant to notice that there is no controversy according to the evidence on record, the charged officer demanded the bribe on 28-8-1981 and even on 29-8-1981 insisted for payment of bribe. Even assuming that someone else on behalf of the charged officer collected the actual bribe just in front of the chamber of the charged officer, that fact itself would not dilute the acceptability and the relevancy of the evidence led in the departmental enquiry. So is the position as regards Charge No. 2 also. Here also, P. W. 9, the complainant retracted from his statement given in the preliminary enquiry and stated that the bribe was not given to the charged officer. The Tribunal disbelieved that version firstly because he was treated as hostile on that limited aspect and also on the ground that that version of P. W. 9 would not fit into the other attending circumstances and evidence on record. ( 7 ) THE Constitutional Courts while reviewing the disciplinary proceedings and actions held and reiterated quite often that the finding that may be recorded by the disciplinary Authority in a departmental enquiry need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and such findings have to be grounded on preponderance of probabilities. It is also well settled principle that the Constitutional Courts while reviewing disciplinary proceedings and action would not go into the sufficiency or insufficiency of the evidence on the basis of which findings are recorded. The only limited scope of judicial review under article 226 is to see whether the finding on misconduct recorded by the disciplinary authority is based on some legally permissible substantive evidence or not and if the Court finds the finding is supported by some legally permissible evidence on record, the Court cannot interfere with the finding. The discretion exercised by the TDP and the apat in not believing the version of the witnesses who are treated as hostile on a limited aspect cannot be condemned as perverse to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The discretion exercised by the TDP and the apat in not believing the version of the witnesses who are treated as hostile on a limited aspect cannot be condemned as perverse to attract the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) SINCE we do not find any ground whatsoever on the basis of which, we can interfere with the disciplinary action, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.