Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 62 (RAJ)

Kantilal Jain v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

2003-01-16

P.C.TATIA

body2003
Honble TATIA, J.–Heard learned counsel for the parties. (2). Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet for the charges mentioned hereinbelow :- ``While working as Head Cashier (Offg) at our surana market, Pali Branch, you also performed the work in Agricultural Loan Section viz. processing of loan applications issuing of sanction letters and verification of spots. It is alleged that you have demanded and accepted on 10.8.1989 in the branch premises a sum of Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification from Shri Pira Ram Choudhary, one of the borrower resident of village Guda Aindla (Pali) for delivery of sanction letter and facilitating disbursal of an agricultural loan to him alongwith his three brothers viz. Chamna, Pukha and Ghessa sons of Shri Rataji for fitting of pipeline amounting to Rs. 21,600/-. (3). The enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer and Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report to the disciplinary authority, copy of which is placed on record alongwith forwarding letter dated 16/31st Dec., 1992. Enquiry report starts from the page No. 37 of the paper book. The Enquiry Officer found the charge proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority, after giving opportunity to the petitioner to give his submissions against the enquiry report, concurred with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passed the order imposing penalty of discharge from the Banks Service from the date of service of the order in terms of paragraph 19.6(e) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.1966. Copy of order of the disciplinary authority is dated 5.08.1993 (Annex. 5). The petitioner preferred an appeal against the above order of punishment dated 5.08.1993. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, which was communicated to the petitioner. The order of rejection of the appeal is dated 17th Sept., 1998, copy of which is placed on record with Annex. 13. (4). The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is a case of no evidence for holding petitioner guilty of any of the charges. It is also submitted that, in fact, no finding has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer with respect to the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner. 13. (4). The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that this is a case of no evidence for holding petitioner guilty of any of the charges. It is also submitted that, in fact, no finding has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer with respect to the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner. Not only this but according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the statements, which were considered and quoted in the enquiry report itself fully proved that the petitioner is not guilty. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the witnesses produced by the department disclosed that there was no demand of illegal gratification by the petitioner, rather the petitioner himself effectively resisted the forcible offer of money given to him by the complainant Pira Ram and he even immediately made compliant to the Branch Manager that Pira Ram is forcing upon him rupees, upon which the Branch Manager of the Bank himself immediately came to the petitioners place and shouted that take the money back, called the Chokidar and directed him to get Pira Ram out. This plea was not even proved and corroborated by the witnesses produced by the Bank itself, but the circumstances also proved that this was a case of concocted trap and not the case of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the petitioner. (5). Learned counsel for the respondent vehemently submitted that the scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India of interference by this court in the matter of domestic enquiry is absolutely limited and this court neither can reappreciate the evidence nor can substitute the conclusion of the court over the finding recorded in the domestic enquiry even if there is possibility of different view of this court. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the judgment of the Honble Apex Court delivered in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council vs. A.K. Chopra (1). The Honble Apex Court held as under : ``17. The High Court appears to have over-looked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is that sole Judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact finding authorities. The High Court appears to have over-looked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is that sole Judge of facts and in case an appeal is presented to the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority has also the power/and jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole fact finding authorities. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. Since, the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising power of judicial review, the High Court cannot normally speaking substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even so far as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the Disciplinary or the Departmental Appellate Authority, is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. Both the learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court, it appears, ignored the well settled principle that even though Judicial Review of administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the Court in exercise of the power of judicial review is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial Review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision making process. Judicial Review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision making process. Loard Haltom in Chief Constable of the North Wales Police vs. Evans (1982) 3 ALLER 141, observed : ``The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after according fair treatment, reaches, on a matter which it is authorized by law to decide for itself, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the Court. Learned counsel for the respondent further relied upon the judgment of this court delivered in the case of R.S. Tanwar vs. Marwar Gramin Bank, Head Office, Pali & Ors. (2), decided on 1st Sept., 2000. In this judgment this court held that acquittal in a criminal case cannot be held to be a bar to hold departmental enquiry. It is relevant to mention here that here in this case also the petitioner was not even subjected to the criminal case as final report was given by even Police on the ground that no case is made out. This court in the judgment referred above dealtwith the scope of interference by the High Court in the matter of order passed in departmental enquiry and held that when the conclusion reached by the authority is based on evidence, the court or the tribunal is devoid of power to re-appreciate the evidence and would come to its own conclusion on the proved charges. (6). After considering the arguments of both the parties and after perusal of the entire record of the present writ petition and in light of the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent it is clear that scope of this court to interfere in the matter of domestic enquiry is very limited. It will be relevant to consider the judgment, which are relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent to find out what is the scope under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the matter of domestic enquiry, when challenged. As quoted above, from the judgment of the Honble Apex Court delivered in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Councils case (supra), the Honble Apex Court while holding that scope is limited held that (i) the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. As quoted above, from the judgment of the Honble Apex Court delivered in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Councils case (supra), the Honble Apex Court while holding that scope is limited held that (i) the adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. (ii) the High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings, while exercising power of judicial review, (iii) the High Court cannot normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent. Therefore, the Honble Apex Court observed that even though Judicial Review of administrative action must remain flexible and its dimension not closed, yet the Court in exercise of the power of judicial review is not concerned with the correctness of the findings of fact on the basis of which the orders are made so long as those findings are reasonably supported by evidence and have been arrived at through proceedings which cannot be faulted with for procedural illegalities or irregularities which vitiate the process by which the decision was arrived at. Judicial Review, it must be remembered, is directed not against the decision, but is confined to the examination of the decision making process. (7). Therefore, in view of the above judgment of the Honble Apex Court as well as the judgment of the Division Bench of this court delivered in the case of R.S. Tanwars case (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent it is clear that despite holding the scope of interference by the court in the matter of departmental enquiry is limited still it has been very specifically held that these limitations applies only till then till the findings of fact are based on evidence and the proceedings have not been by adopting procedure, which cannot be faulted with illegalities and irregularities, which vitiates the process by which the decision was arrived at in the departmental proceeding. In my opinion, otherwise it will be recognizing of a right of the employer to remove the employee simply because employer has authority to remove the employee and the procedure provided and protection given by the rules will become nugatory. The delinquent person will have stigma and will be condemned without any evidence in support of charge, which is not permissible. (8). The delinquent person will have stigma and will be condemned without any evidence in support of charge, which is not permissible. (8). Here is this case, the contention of petitioner is that, in this case, not only no evidence was recorded against the petitioner by the enquiry officer, but from the evidence considered and referred in the enquiry report itself sufficiently proves that, in fact, petitioner was wrongly fixed in this episode by levelling serious charge of demanding and accepting bribe. It is also submitted that even if the evidence, which were considered by the enquiry officer if read only then also it is proved that the petitioner himself successfully resisted the illegal act of the complainant, who wanted to drag the petitioner in concocted case. Looking to the charge, it is true that if the charge stands proved then no lenient view can be taken against the person, who is indulged in demanding and accepting illegal gratification and such person cannot claim even any leniency in the matter of award of punishment. (9). The Enquiry Officer recorded finding after detail discussion of all the evidences produced by the department as well as the defence witnesses. The allegation against the delinquent officer was that he demanded and accepted on 10.08.1989 a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification from one Sh. Pira Ram Chaudhary for delivery of sanction letter and facilitating disbursement of agricultural loan of Rs. 21,600/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the complainant Pira Ram was not produced and examined in the departmental enquiry for which learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, in fact, subsequently the complainant Pira Ram was murdered, but both the counsel admitted that fact of murder of Pira Ram has not come on record, but the fact of death of Pira Ram is not in dispute. The witnesses, who were produced by the department are S/Sh. K.R. Mehta (BW-1), Kushal Bhojwani (BW-2), M.S. Gaur (BW-3), L.V. Ojha (BW-4), Hanuman Singh (PW-5), J.N. Sharma (BW-6) and M.D. Gaur (BW-7), Sh. K.R. Mehta (BW-1) was the Manager of the Bank at the time of incident. Sh. Kushal Bhojwani (BW-2) was also Banks employee, but he stated that he was on leave on the day of happening, i.e., on 10.08.1989. Sh. K.R. Mehta (BW-1) was the Manager of the Bank at the time of incident. Sh. Kushal Bhojwani (BW-2) was also Banks employee, but he stated that he was on leave on the day of happening, i.e., on 10.08.1989. Sh. M.S. Gaur (BW-3) was the Branch Manager of the Branch where the incident took place, but he was posted from March, 1985 to July, 1988 whereas the incident is of 10.08.1989. Sh. L.V. Ojha (BW-4) was working at the Branch since June, 1989 on the post of Accountant. Sh. Hanuman Singh (BW-5) was the LDC in the Commercial Tax Department. Pali and was not employee of the respondent-bank, but he was a person, who was witness in the trap party when the trap was conducted against the petitioner. Sh. J.N. Sharma (BW-6) was the Branch Manager from August, 1988 to June, 1990. Sh. M.D. Gaur (BW-7) was the Police Officer, who investigated the event of trapping of the petitioner in the capacity of Dy. SP. CBI, Jodhpur and witness Shridhar Joshi was Dy. SP ACD, Pali, who was the incharge of the trap party. (10). The Enquiry Officer initially proceeded to decide whether the petitioner was working in the Agricultural Loan Section, but it appears that this was not the charge against the petitioner that he committed any misconduct by working in the Agricultural Loan Section. In this connection, the Enquiry Officer found that Branch Manager is himself competent, i.e., cash Deptt. or Agricultural Loan Section is not valuable. During leave absence, Sh. K.L. Jain was performing the duties in absence of permanent Head Cashier by virtue of seniority of the Branch, though he has working in the Accounts Section as per the established practice and reasonableness. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer found that the above charge, (which is, in fact, not charge) was found not proved. (11). So far as demand of Rs. 1,000/- from Pira Ram is concerned, the Enquiry Officer considered the complaint lodged by Pira Ram to the Dy. SP ACD, Pali, copy of which was Ex.B-1 before the Enquiry Officer and also considered the investigation proceedings. The report, which was submitted to the Dy. SP ACD, Pali is to the effect that the Manager of the Bank told the complainant that formalities for getting loan may be got completed from petitioner. SP ACD, Pali, copy of which was Ex.B-1 before the Enquiry Officer and also considered the investigation proceedings. The report, which was submitted to the Dy. SP ACD, Pali is to the effect that the Manager of the Bank told the complainant that formalities for getting loan may be got completed from petitioner. On the same day, i.e., on 7.08.1989 at about 5 PM after looking into the loan file, petitioner informed the complainant that his agricultural loan payable in three instalments has been sanctioned and total amount sanction is Rs. 21,600/-. Petitioner told Pira Ram that he will be coming after talking to the `Saheb and after returning, the petitioner informed the complainant that your work will not be done and ultimately petitioner told Pira Ram that he may come with Rs. 1000/- on 8.08.1989 then he will complete the work of the complainant. It is also recorded in the enquiry report that on the complaint of the complainant Sh. Shridhar Joshi, Dy. SP ACD, Pali reported that complainant came to him and submitted written complaint that petitioner is demanding Rs. 1000/- as illegal gratification and it is also recorded that orally Pira Ram explained the entire events to the Dy. SP Sh. Shridhar Joshi. Sh. Shridhar Joshi was the incharge of the trap party. It appears that investigation was handed over to Sh. M.D. Gaur, Dy. S.P. CBI, Jodhpur (BW-7), who processed the matter and reported proceedings at page No. 76 of the proceedings wherein it is recorded that the complainant thereafter, went to the Bank for number of times, but his work was not completed and on 8.08.1989 the petitioner told the complainant Pira Ram to come with Rs. 1000/- then his loan will be disbursed. After recording these facts from the proceedings conducted by the Police Officers, the Enquiry Officer recorded that on the basis of these statements it is found that Sh. K.L. Jain accused employee had demanded Rs. 1000/- from Sh. Pira Ram for facilitating of loan to Pira Ram for pipeline amounting to Rs. 21,600/-. It is not clear from the enquiry report of the enquiry officer whether this was the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer or it was the satisfaction recorded by the Police Officer to register a case to proceed against the petitioner Sh. K.L. Jain on the charge or demand of Rs. 21,600/-. It is not clear from the enquiry report of the enquiry officer whether this was the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer or it was the satisfaction recorded by the Police Officer to register a case to proceed against the petitioner Sh. K.L. Jain on the charge or demand of Rs. 1000/- because till, at this stage, where it has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer that petitioner was found to have demanded Rs. 1000/- there is no discussion of any other witness, except Shridhar Joshi, Dy. SP., ACD, Pali and M.D. Guar, Dy. SP, CBI, Jodhpur. Therefore, it appears that what has been observed at page No. 45 of the paper book is the finding, which was recorded by the Police department and not by the Enquiry Officer. (12). Assuming for the sake of arguments that this is the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer at this place then the evidence, which was discussed was only to the effect that a complaint was lodged by Pira Ram to Shridhar Joshi, Dy. SP, ACD, Pali and after investigation Sh. M.D. Gaur, Dy. SP. CBI, Jodhpur recorded his satisfaction about holding the petitioner guilty demanding of Rs. 1000/- from Pira Ram. It is nowhere in the entire enquiry report that Shridhar Joshi, Dy. SP ACD, Pali and Sh. M.D. Gaur, Dy. SP, CBI, Jodhpur in any way witnessed the incident and the transaction including demand of illegal gratification took place before them or they saw the happening of the incident. Contrary to above, the witnesses produced by the department-respondent Sh. K.R. Mehta (BW-1) stated that in this matter, the petitioner informed the Branch Manager Sh. J.N. Sharma that one cultivator is trying to bribe him and the Branch Manager directed Chokidar to send that person out. This witness also stated that Branch Manager was standing just outside the room of the witness K.R. Mehta and was shouting that take your money back and directed Chokidar to remove this person (Pira Ram). Other witnesses of the department Sh. L.V. Ojha, who was working as Accountant in the bank, stated that he was sitting on his chair, the Branch Manager Sh. J.N. Sharma called him and, thereafter, Sh. J.N. Sharma started scolding one person and at that moment 8 to 10 persons came suddenly closed the door and one of them introduced himself as Dy. SP, ACD. L.V. Ojha, who was working as Accountant in the bank, stated that he was sitting on his chair, the Branch Manager Sh. J.N. Sharma called him and, thereafter, Sh. J.N. Sharma started scolding one person and at that moment 8 to 10 persons came suddenly closed the door and one of them introduced himself as Dy. SP, ACD. Prosecution witness BW0-5 Hanuman Singh, who was the independent witness and was taken as witness by the ACD party alongwith them, stated that when he entered in the room he found the notes lying on the table and in cross-examination he made it clear that he never saw any person giving any amount to anybody. Not only this, but Sh. J.N. Sharma (BW-6), who was the Branch Manager of the respondent Bank himself deposed before the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner came to his (Managers Cabin) and informed that Pira Ram was forcibly giving money to him and this was the first information I got, which was from the petitioner. Witness DW-5 produced by the department is Sidhkaran Sharma, LDC working in the employee-bank itself stated that witnesses of the trap party were directed to sit outside the room from where they could see the room. He further stated that at the time of incident Pira Ram went inside the room and handed over some papers alongwith currency notes and when the petitioner opened the papers immediately on seeing the currency notes, he dropped the currency notes and petitioner himself went to the Branch Manager and told him that the complainant is giving money forcibly. This witness DB-5 stated that there was long queue on the counter, there was much noise, therefore, he could not hear exactly that what transpired there. Even Shridhar Joshi, Dy. SP. ACD, Pali also in his statement admitted that the currency notes were found lying on the table and very specifically stated that he had not seen the transaction of giving and taking of the money nor he heard anything. Witness M.D. Gaur, Dy. SP.CBI, Jodhpur stated that since the recovery memo and the map prepared at that time was not to the satisfaction and since both the independent witnesses did not see the actual giving of the amount nor they heard anything, therefore, it appears that challan was not filed. Witness M.D. Gaur, Dy. SP.CBI, Jodhpur stated that since the recovery memo and the map prepared at that time was not to the satisfaction and since both the independent witnesses did not see the actual giving of the amount nor they heard anything, therefore, it appears that challan was not filed. These statements only were considered by the Enquiry Officer and, thereafter, the Enquiry Officer in ultimate part of the enquiry report Ex.3 recorded as under :- ``After taking into consideration all the facts based on the witnesses produced before the enquiry authority, it is proved that the notes come in the contact of hand of Sh. K.L. Jain which recovered by the trap party from his table. Therefore, it appears from the entire evidence, which was considered by the Enquiry Officer and referred hereinabove that the complainant was not examined, may it be due to him death. The Police Officers produced by the department were, one, who conducted the trap, Shridhar Joshi and witness M.D. Sharma, who investigated the matter, none of them gave any positive evidence in respect to the actual demand of the money by the petitioner or saw the actual handing over the money by the complainant to the petitioner. Not only this, but Shridhar Joshi, Dy. SP, ACD, Pali unequivocally admitted that he did not see the transaction of giving and taking of money nor he heard any conversation between the employee (delinquent officer) and Pira Ram. Admittedly, witness Sh. Gaur was not present on that day on the spot. Therefore, it is clear from the entire report itself that there was no iota of evidence in support of the charge levelled against the petitioner for demanding illegal gratification and for the charge that he accepted the illegal gratification. (13). Not only this, but what has come on record by way of evidence of all the witnesses with respect to the actual incident is that Pira Ram offered some money to the petitioner and the petitioner immediately went to his Branch Manager, informed him, Branch Manager came to the place of the petitioner alongwith one L.V. Ojha, Accountant working in the bank. Branch Manager scolded the person who tried to give currency notes to the petitioner and, thereafter the said Dy. SP, ACD, Pali came in the room. Branch Manager scolded the person who tried to give currency notes to the petitioner and, thereafter the said Dy. SP, ACD, Pali came in the room. The evidence referred above was fully supported by the independent witness Hanuman Singh, who stated that when he went with the Dy. SP., ACD. notes were lying on the table. When the witness of the department themselves including Shridhar Joshi, Dy. SP, ACD, Pali incharge of the trap party and independent witness Hanuman Singh, themselves admitted that they did not see the incident, nor heard anything and other witnesses of the department say that immediately complaint was lodged by the petitioner to the Manager of the incident and no evidence to the contrary is available on record then it is certainly a case of no evidence in support of charge of demanding and accepting money by the petitioner. (14). The conclusion, which was drawn by the Enquiry Officer is to the effect that petitioner came in contact with the money. This finding was recorded on the basis of the reason that when the petitioner was asked to undergo test conducted for philopthin, the colour in the liquid was charged. I found that it is nobodys case that petitioner never came into contact of the currency notes, but it is proved from the positive evidence of the prosecution itself that instantly, when the petitioner found the currency notes alongwith papers he dropped (or threw) the currency notes. Therefore, for coming into contact of the currency notes of the petitioner cannot be of relevance to prove charge of demanding and accepting the illegal gratification. (15). In view of the above, it is a clear case of no evidence in support of the charge and the Enquiry Officer has recorded whatever finding (not sufficient to hold guilty petitioner of demanding bribe and accepting bribe) and, therefore, has committed serious illegality and in view of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent itself it is sufficient to hold that the enquiry report itself is absolutely illegal and liable to be quashed. (16). So far as order passed by the disciplinary authority is concerned, it is clear that the disciplinary authority recorded order of concurrence with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. When Enquiry Officers report itself is based upon no evidence then the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 5.08.1993 cannot be sustained. (16). So far as order passed by the disciplinary authority is concerned, it is clear that the disciplinary authority recorded order of concurrence with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer. When Enquiry Officers report itself is based upon no evidence then the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 5.08.1993 cannot be sustained. It is clear from the order dated 5.08.1993 itself that had the disciplinary authority looked into even enquiry report itself, it could not have passed the order of punishment holding petitioner guilty because the Enquiry Officer himself narrated the evidence on which he wants to rely and there is no iota of evidence to prove the charge against the petitioner, as found by the Enquiry Officer as from what the Enquiry Officer has recorded out of the statement of the various witnesses proves the innocence of the petitioner rather the guilt. Therefore, the order dated 5.08.1993, which was passed without dealing with any of the grounds raised by the petitioner and based upon absolutely illegal enquiry report, also deserves to be set aside. It is also relevant to mention here that the disciplinary authority recorded the finding that the petitioner is guilty of demanding and accepting the sum of Rs. 1000/- on the basis of alleged conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer, in fact, no such finding was recorded by the Enquiry Officer. But the Enquiry Officer recorded the finding of coming into contact of the petitioner with the money. (17). Learned counsel for the petitioner further challenged the order passed by the Appellate Authority. From a bare perusal of the order of the Appellate Authority also, it is clear that the Appellate Authority held that giving of FR in criminal case will not bar the department from holding enquiry. So far as challenge to the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the order of the disciplinary authority is concerned, merely it is said that from oral as well as documentary evident it has been proved that there was demand of Rs. 1000/- and money was recovered by the trap party from his table and the petitioner failed to give suitable explanation of the fact that how the notes, which were offered to the petitioner come into contact with his hand. Hence, the charge of demand and acceptance of Rs. 1000/- from Pira Ram amounts to gross misconduct. 1000/- and money was recovered by the trap party from his table and the petitioner failed to give suitable explanation of the fact that how the notes, which were offered to the petitioner come into contact with his hand. Hence, the charge of demand and acceptance of Rs. 1000/- from Pira Ram amounts to gross misconduct. As stated in preceding paras it is clear that money coming into contact of the petitioner cannot be a ground to hold that this was the money demanded by the petitioner and accepted by the petitioner as illegal gratification. The evidence as it is available and not discarded by the Enquiry Officer or disciplinary authority or Appellate Authority proves beyond doubt that money was forced upon the petitioner and he immediately complained for that, gives full explanation for petitioner coming into contact with the money and in these circumstances, the colour, which came in Philopthin test is not proving the guilt but only proving the fact of coming into contact with the money by the petitioner in the circumstances in which it came into contact with the petitioner. (18). Therefore, the order dated 17th Sept., 1998 (Annex. 13) passed by the Appellate Authority is also absolutely illegal and contrary to the evidence available on record and contrary to the findings recorded in the enquiry report itself. (19). Learned counsel for the respondent submits that when the employer lost confidence in the petitioner then there is no reason for directing respondent to accept the petitioner in job. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent deserves to be rejected simply on the ground that no ground is made out for loss of confidence in petitioner by the employer rather all the witnesses of the employer gave statements which rather supports the plea of the petitioner that he was trapped in this incident. The plea of loss of confidence is not available by saying word of mouth. This plea cannot be taken by the employer at any time, in any manner, in any case, it must satisfy the conscience of the court or to authority, there must exists some reason for saying that the employer lost confidence in the employee. The plea of loss of confidence is not available by saying word of mouth. This plea cannot be taken by the employer at any time, in any manner, in any case, it must satisfy the conscience of the court or to authority, there must exists some reason for saying that the employer lost confidence in the employee. Particularly, in the facts of this case where it appears that the entire story of demand of bribe and acceptance of bribe was concocted story and the ACD department itself gave FR in the criminal case and there is no ground made out about the conduct of the petitioner on the basis of which, the non-petitioner-employer can say that they lost the confidence in the petitioner. Therefore, this plea is rejected. (20). In view of the above reasonings, the writ petition of the petitioner is allowed and the enquiry report dated 16th Nov., 1992, the order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 5.08.1992 (Annex. 5) and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 17th Sept., 1998 are quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled for all the consequential benefits. The order of reinstatement be issued in favour of the petitioner as early as possible preferably within a period of one month after placing of the certified copy of this order by the petitioner.