JUDGMENT : - S. K. Singh, J. 1. HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. N. Rai learned advocate who appears for the respondents. 2. THE challenge before this Court is the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service by order of the Assistant Regional Manager/respondent No. 3 dated 30.11.2000, as confirmed by respondent No. 1/Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. dated 3.3.2001 (Annexures-8 and 11 to the writ petition) respectively. It appears that in respect to an incident which is said to have taken place on 24.10.1988 for which on resistance having been put by respondent No. 4 about parking of the vehicle No. 3572 in front of Union Office, the petitioner threatened the respondent No. 4 and with the help of two outsiders manhandled him, about which complaint was made by respondent No. 4 with a further fact that the vehicle was got parked in front of Union Office with the intention of diesel theft. It is in view of the aforesaid complaint, on the charges referred above, the petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated. Pursuant to the disciplinary proceeding, inquiry officer submitted his report, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It is on the basis of that report, the impugned decision by respondent No. 3 as affirmed by respondent No. 1, came into existence, which made the petitioner aggrieved to approach this Court by filing this petition. 3. LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned exercise by the respondents besides being illegal is in violation of principles of natural justice as well. It is pointed out that in respect to any charge, it is first the concern of the employer to get the charges proved against the charged employee for which, the evidence in any shape will have to be led. LEARNED counsel submits that in the present case, there is absolutely no independent evidence to corroborate the charges levelled against the petitioner rather the complainant/respondent No. 4 has moved an application on 12.11.1999 stating that the complaint was made against the petitioner under some confusion and he didn't with to lead any evidence and to give his statement. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that there being absolutely no evidence, taking of the impugned decision against the petitioner, cannot be said to be justified. In view of the aforesaid, it is submitted that there being absolutely no evidence, taking of the impugned decision against the petitioner, cannot be said to be justified. It has been further submitted that in fact the respondents have already given adverse entry in the character roll of the petitioner by order dated 2.9.1999, copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The adverse entry of the petitioner states that the petitioner is indulged in getting diesel theft from the Depot and he is involved in the politics. It is pointed out that against the adverse entry so given, an appeal is pending before the competent authority. Lastly, it has been submitted that the petitioner has never been found involved or indulged in any irregularity and therefore, on the basis of alleged charges, although which has not been proved by any evidence, awarding of extreme penalty of dismissal from service, is apparently motivated for the simple reason that the petitioner happens to be Regional Secretary of Western Region of Shramik Samaj Kalyan Sangh. In view of the aforesaid premises, learned counsel submits that the impugned action as taken by the respondent No. 3 as confirmed by the respondent No. 3 needs interference by this Court. 4. SRI Rai who appeared for respondents, by reading report of inquiry officer at fullest length, tried to justify the impugned action by submitting that the charges against the petitioner have been found to be proved for which, the authorities have given cogent reason and as the charge against the petitioner is of serious nature, punishment so awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate as has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the evidence on which the charges against the petitioner has been found to be proved cannot be re-assessed and gone into by this Court and therefore, he submits that the writ petition warrants dismissal. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has to be relegated for alternative remedy to approach the labour court and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been further submitted that the petitioner has to be relegated for alternative remedy to approach the labour court and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. In view of the aforesaid submissions as has come from both sides, pleadings as has been set forth before this Court and the material as exists on record have been examined. 5. THERE appears to be absolutely no dispute that the petitioner happens to be the Secretary of Western Region of Shramik Samaj Kalyan Sangh. THERE also appears to be no dispute that the petitioner has been proceeded with, solely on the basis of the complaint which was made by the respondent No. 4 in respect to an incident which is said to have taken place on 24.10.1998 as respondent No. 4 got an impression that vehicle No. 3572 was got parked before the Union Office by the petitioner with the intention of diesel theft from that vehicle which on being resisted, he was manhandled. THERE also appears to be no dispute about the fact that during the enquiry proceedings, respondent No. 4 instead of coming before the inquiry officer for giving his statement to corroborate the fact as was mentioned in the complaint, moved an application on 12.11.1999 stating therein that under some confusion, he made that complaint and in respect to the allegation against the petitioner, he has nothing to say. Admittedly, the petitioner is simply a Chaukidar. He has no concern with plying of the vehicle. THERE is neither any allegation nor any evidence whatsoever and nothing in this respect has been pointed out from the side of the respondents that who drove the vehicle up to the place where it was found to have been parked and whether any other person including the driver of that vehicle or even the petitioner, is responsible for getting the vehicle parked at the complained place. The Court, has been taken by learned counsel for the respondent to the inquiry officer's report which is the basis and foundation for taking impugned decision against the petitioner. The Court, has been taken by learned counsel for the respondent to the inquiry officer's report which is the basis and foundation for taking impugned decision against the petitioner. On a reading of the report of the inquiry officer, this Court fails to find out any independent evidence whatsoever i.e., the statement of a single person to confirm the alleged incident which is said to have taken place as alleged by the complainant/respondent No. 4. The report of the inquiry officer proceeds on presumption that as there was a complaint which has been subsequently withdrawn by respondent No. 4, the charge against the petitioner must be taken to be proved. This is the sole reason given by the disciplinary authority and also by appellate authority while confirming the punishment. 6. IN view of the aforesaid, it appears to be a case of absolutely no evidence on the basis of which, it can be said that the charge against the petitioner stands proved. Any employee cannot be permitted to be punished merely on the basis of probabilities unless there is positive evidence and proof in that respect. The scope of interference by this Court is limited only when there is evidence to sustain the charges and then in those cases, this Court will feel restraint in going into about sufficiency of the evidence but take a case where there is absolutely no evidence, interference by this Court need not to be declined. IN view of the aforesaid observations, as at the initial stage, writ petition was entertained, the pleadings were directed to be completed now at the time of hearing of the matter, the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner should be relegated to the alternative remedy also deserves rejection. Otherwise, also as the charge against the petitioner has been found to be not proved, it appears that the respondents without applying their mind to the facts and situation and without realising that there is none to corroborate and confirm even the initial complaint as made by the respondent No. 4, have proceeded to punish the petitioner and that too with extreme penalty of dismissal, obviously for the reasons that the petitioner happens to be leader of the employees union. This Court feels that the action of the respondents is not justified and thus it deserves disapproval. This Court feels that the action of the respondents is not justified and thus it deserves disapproval. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.11.2000, as confirmed by respondent No. 1/Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. dated 3.3.2001 (Annexures-8 and 11 to the writ petition) respectively are hereby quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to be re-instated in service with all consequential benefits.