JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition is directed against the orders passed by the 1 respondent - Bank on 7.7.1992 and 15.5.1990 by which the petitioner has been visited with the punishment of stoppage of two grade increments of 1991 and 1992 with cumulative effect and declaring him ineligible for promotion for three years from the date of order i.e. 15.5.1990. 2. The travel up to this stage commences with the incident which took place on 2.2.19C8. A memorandum of charges dated 16.9.1988 was served on the petitioner alleging that while he was working as a Branch Manager, Thar Aanchalik Gramin Bank, Hodu (Distt. Barmer) on 2.2.1988, he demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- as bribe from one Shri Pura Ram Jat S/o Shri 10 Male. Ham Jat Rio village Nimbatkot, Distt. Barmer for making payment of his insurance claim for the camel which had died. The amount of Rs 300/- was found at his residence which were allegedly thrown on floor by the delinquent officer after seeing the Dy. Superintendent of Police (Anti Corruption) and members of his trap party. 3. The details of charges levelled, referred that on I 2.1988 Pura Ram has lodged a written complaint to DSP (ACD) that the Delinquent Officer has demanded from him a bribe for passing his insurance claim against the camel which has died on 2.11.87. On 2.2.1988, Pura Ram delivered Rs. 300/-which were illegally demanded by the Delinquent Officer to Dy. S.R, number of which were noted and were returned to the complainant after being signed by the DSP/(ACD) and smearing with the phenolphthalein powder. On 2.2.1988 at 10.15 AM, the trap party entered into the residence of the Delinquent Officer and asked him whether he has 'accepted Rs. 300/- as bribe from Pura Ram, the Delinquent Officer Anda Ram threw the amount which AI a s in his hands on floor about which Pura Ram stated that he has given to Anda Ram by way of bribe. 4. In respect of the very same incident, an investigation was also made by the group of Department personnel and a Final Report stating that the charge of demanding bribe by the delinquent officer from Pura Ram is not proved from the material on record and the graft charges cannot be sustained in the trial. The Final Report was accepted by the Court vide order dated 22.4.93. The Final Report was accepted by the Court vide order dated 22.4.93. At that time of accepted of the FR, the complainant and his counsel were not present. In fact, they have not appeared since 8.3.1990. 5. In the departmental enquiry, by order dated 15.2.89, one Shri Anjum Parvej, officer of the respondent Bank was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquiry into the aforesaid charge. About appointment of Anjum Parvej, soon after an objection was raised by the Delinquent Officer by his communication dated 10.3.1989 (Annex. 10) stating that the Enquiry Officer is junior to him and he cannot be appointed under the Rules as his enquiry officer. It was pointed out that in the seniority list dated 11.11.87 issued by the Bank, the Delinquent Officer was placed at Serial No. 1 and the Enquiry Officer was placed below him, therefore. he was junior to him. Subsequent thereto, in the new seniority list, he has been shown senior to the Delinquent Officer. It was also stated that they are from the same batch, therefore, in view of the aforesaid circumstances, he cannot continue with the enquiry. This objection was not replied to or decided by the Disciplinary Authority, nor it was replied to by the Board of Directors until conclusion of the enquiry. 6. The petitioner had also demanded that he is to appoint a defence representative for which he has written a letter to the Gramin Bank employees Union of which he is member which will represent him in the departmental enquiry. It was also stated in the letter dated 10.3.89 that the name of the officer nominated by the Union too will be communicated to him shortly and time was sought so that he can appear with his defence representative. This prayer was declined stating that the defence counsel of to the delinquent can be an officer or employee of Thar Aanchalik Gramin Bank only. After receiving the information dated 7.4.89 as aforesaid, the petitioner vide his letter dated 24.4.1989, requested the Enquiry Officer that he may be allowed to be represented by Shri K.P. Vyas of Marwar Gramin Bank Head Office, Pali who is member of the Executive of the Union of which the is Delinquent Officer is a member. After receiving the information dated 7.4.89 as aforesaid, the petitioner vide his letter dated 24.4.1989, requested the Enquiry Officer that he may be allowed to be represented by Shri K.P. Vyas of Marwar Gramin Bank Head Office, Pali who is member of the Executive of the Union of which the is Delinquent Officer is a member. It was also pointed out in the said letter that even earlier enquiry pending against the same delinquent officer, Shri B.S. Jaitawat, an employee of Marwar Gramin Bank and Shri L.P. Gaur an employee of another rural Bank and member of the Executive of the Union were appointed. Again, a reminder was issued to that effect by the Delinquent Officer to act on his request letter dated 24.4.1989 vide letter dated 15.6.89 (Annex. 15). However, the said request was not responded to and the petitioner was not allowed to he represented by the Executive Officer of his Union of which he was a member 7. The delinquent Officer has also demanded from the Enquiry Officer, the regulations concerning the departmental enquiry by the Bank. The documents relating to the charge, copies of statement of witnesses, the report of the Anti Corruption Deptt. and Central Bureau of Investigation, the list of the witnesses of the Bank and documents which have been produced by the Bank were also demanded so that he could prepare the case for his so defence. He also complained that by denying the copies of the aforesaid documents and not permitting him to be represented through the member of the trade Union, of which he was a member, the proceedings are conducted in unfair manner and prejudicial to his interest. The communication to that effect was made on 271.1989. 8. Be that as it may, the Enquiry officer submitted hie report dated 17.3,90, copy of which was given to the Delinquent Officer vide communication dated 21.4.1990. 9. The Enquiry Officer drew the following conclusions after considering the rival contentions: 1. It is proved that behaviour of Mr. Singaria was not bonafide. It was intended to keep the party in Dark. 2. Demand of bribe by Mr. Singaria is not proved by any documentary/independent witness. 3. It is proved that Mr. Singaria took Rs. 300/- from Mr. Pura Ram. 4. In the absence of eye-witnesses, it cannot be determined whether he accepted the money voluntarily or forcibly. 5. Singaria was not bonafide. It was intended to keep the party in Dark. 2. Demand of bribe by Mr. Singaria is not proved by any documentary/independent witness. 3. It is proved that Mr. Singaria took Rs. 300/- from Mr. Pura Ram. 4. In the absence of eye-witnesses, it cannot be determined whether he accepted the money voluntarily or forcibly. 5. The circumstances in which he accepted the money makes his behaviour suspicious because the happening subsequently to such art instance does not conform the element of compulsion in handing over the money. 10. It will not be out of place to mention here that so far as acceptance of Rs. 300/- from Pura Ram on the date of incident is concerned, was never a point in issue. The Delinquent Officer has specifically stated that the amount t was handed over to him towards payment of an instalment as has been paid by many other persons who had taken loan from the bank and he has also referred to specific instances in his reply. About the amount found at his residence, the statement was that Pura Ram has come to his residence and stated that some amount against interest is due in his account and which he has prayed for depositing and he requested that since he is in hurry, the Delinquent Officer may accept the amount and deposit the same in his account. The complainant further stated that he would collect the voucher later on. When the complainant was asked to reach the bank at 10 AM for to depositing the amount in Bank, the complainant forcibly stuffed the amount in his hands which notes were subsequently found on floor by the trap party before he has left for the Bank. 11. The Disciplinary Authority referring to the report submitted by Investigation Officer of the 4CD referred to the fact that though from the Material on record it is not proved that Anda Ram demanded the bribe from Pura Ram but it was noticed that the amount of Rs. 300/- was taken in hand by the Delinquent Officer. The amount was not deposited in the Bank thereafter and when fingers of Delinquent Officer were put in water, the colour of water changed to purple suggesting that Shri Sangaria has received Rs. 3001- in his hands. The aforesaid notice finds place in i.he minutes of personal hearing dated 2.5.90 (Annex. 28). The amount was not deposited in the Bank thereafter and when fingers of Delinquent Officer were put in water, the colour of water changed to purple suggesting that Shri Sangaria has received Rs. 3001- in his hands. The aforesaid notice finds place in i.he minutes of personal hearing dated 2.5.90 (Annex. 28). Finally by order dated 15.5.90 while rejecting the contention of the Delinquent Officer about unfairness of the enquiry in not permitting him to represent through the member of the Executive of the trade Union of which he was a member, and as that he was not made available copies of the relevant documents or about the ineligibility of Anjum Parvej as Enquiry Officer being junior to the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer that Anda Ram Singharia, the delinquent officer accepted the amount of Rs. 300/- as bribe from Pura Ram for passing the insurance claim of the deceased camel. After making into consideration the gravity of misconduct and the fact that the Delinquent Officer belongs to weaker sections of society, the aforesaid punishment was imposed. 12. On appeal before the appellate Authority, the appeal was rejected vide communication dated 7.7.92 (Annex. 32). 13. In the aforesaid circumstances, it has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner firstly that the enquiry has been conducted in breach of principles of natural justice and contrary to the Rules. In this connection, it was firstly urged that Anjum Parvej was shown junior to the petitioner in the seniority list published prior to 3.2.89 and even after raising objection to said seniority list dated 3.2.1989, he was continued as Enquiry Officer to inquire into the aforesaid charges. In this connection, it was also urged by the learned counsel that the order placing Anjum Parvej and others Senior to the petitioner was earlier challenged by way of a Writ Petition and that Writ Petition was pending during the pendency of the enquiry and ultimately it came to be allowed on 6.9.1991 (Annex. 36). The conduct of the enquiry, therefore, suffers at least from the real likelihood of bias on the part of the Enquiry Officer. Consequently, the enquiry stands vitiated. 14. 36). The conduct of the enquiry, therefore, suffers at least from the real likelihood of bias on the part of the Enquiry Officer. Consequently, the enquiry stands vitiated. 14. It was further contended that contrary to the regulation, which only prohibited entry of the legal experts to be engaged as a defence representative, the Delinquent Officer has been wrongly denied the representation through trade Union of which he was a member by asking him to confine the choice of his defence representative from amongst the employees of the respondent Bank as part of breach of principles of natural justice. It was also urged that the Delinquent Officer was not supplied with the copies of the relevant documents demanded by him during the course of enquiry and he was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses who were examined in his absence. 15. It was contended that while recording categorical finding that demand of bribe by the Delinquent Officer from Pura Ram, complainant was not proved and that it cannot be said with definiteness whether the amount to was received by the Delinquent Officer voluntarily or forced into his hands, the further conclusion that he has received voluntarily the amount of Rs. 300/- as a bribe from Pura Ram is founded on no evidence and is an outcome of mere suspicion. it was submitted that mere suspicion cannot take the place of proof to sustain the punishment. In this connection, reliance is was placed on Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 . 16. The learned counsel for the Bank in reply has contended that as a matter of fact as on the date Anjum Parvej was appointed as an Enquiry Officer as per the Bank record, he was senior to the Delinquent Officer and could have been so appointed, therefore, no illegality can be found in the appointment of Anjum Parvej as Enquiry Officer as it is not in dispute that the Enquiry Officer could be any person who is not subordinate to the Delinquent Officer and is not junior to him in his -.own cadre. Replying to not making available trio defence representative of his choice from the trade Union of which he is a member. it was urged by Mr. Replying to not making available trio defence representative of his choice from the trade Union of which he is a member. it was urged by Mr. Purohit, learned counsel as for the respondents that since under the Regulation, no specific provision has been made as to who can be the defence representative and it merely provided for excluding the legal practitioners from the arena of defence nominee unless permitted by the Enquiry Officer, the Board of Directors in exercise of their powers conferred by Regulation 61 has issued instructions that only persons who are employed in the rank could be permitted to act as defence nominee and which is not against the Regulation. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer did not comma any wrong in informing the Delinquent Officer to choose his defence nominee only from amongst the employees of the Bank. Since the member of the Trade Union who was nominated for representing the Delinquent Officer was not an employee of the respondent Bank. he could not have been permitted to participate in the enquiry as defence representative, therefore, for this reason also the enquiry cannot be vitiated. 17. Referring to the contentions about the enquiry having been vitiated on account of real likelihood of bias, it was pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that in fact the petitioner has not himself filed the petition but was flied by Scheduled Castes Union raising a general issue to settle the principle for assigning the seniority amongst the recruits of the same selection process. In fact, it was a dispute about allotting correct roaster point and not a personal dispute of seniority between the Delinquent Officer and the Enquiry Officer. As a matter of fact, Mr. Purohit also referred to the writ petition in which the judgment in question was delivered wherein a prayer was made to restore the seniority list dated 10.1.89 in which also the Delinquent Officer was shown junior to the Enquiry Officer. The copy of the said writ petition in which the judgment was delivered was placed for perusal so of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent. 18. Joining the issue in respect of non-delivery of copies of the relevant documents, it was submitted by Mr. The copy of the said writ petition in which the judgment was delivered was placed for perusal so of the Court by the learned counsel for the respondent. 18. Joining the issue in respect of non-delivery of copies of the relevant documents, it was submitted by Mr. Purohit that all relevant documents were supplied to the Delinquent Officer and the copies of the statement made 1 during the investigation before the police could not have been supplied by the Bank as they were not in possession of the Bank. So far as investigation report was concerned, copy of the same had been supplied to the Delinquent Officer, therefore, no breach of principle of natural justice on this count was also made out. 19. Lastly, joining the issue on merit, it was contended by Mr. Purohit mat the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer and affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority are not liable to be judicially reviewed except on the ground of manner in which they have been arrived at or illegality and irregularity, if any, in the process of conducting the enquiry. The merit of the finding by appreciating the evidence is beyond the pale of scope of judicial review. For this purpose, reliance was placed on State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723 ; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., (1995) 6 SCC 749 ; High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Uday Singh & Ors., (1997) 5 SCC 129 ; Bank of India & Anr. v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 . In this connection, it was also contended by the learned counsel for the respondent that it is not essential part of fair play that a Delinquent Officer must necessarily be permitted to be represented through a member of his Trade Union of which he was a member. The representation of the Delinquent Officer depends on the scheme of the rules or regulations governing the procedure of the Department and no general principles can be applied except to the extent that it should not be prejudicial to the Delinquent Officer and should not result in denial of fair opportunity to defend the Delinquent Officer. In this connection, reliance was placed on H.C. Sarin v. Union of India & Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 765 ; N. Kalindi & Ors. v. M/s. Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co. In this connection, reliance was placed on H.C. Sarin v. Union of India & Ors., (1976) 4 SCC 765 ; N. Kalindi & Ors. v. M/s. Tata Locomotive & Engineering Co. Ltd., Jamshedpur, AIR 1960 SC 914 ; Central Bank of India Ltd. v. Karunamoy Banerjee, AIR 1968 SC 266 ; and The Dunlop Rubber Co. (India) Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1965 SC 1392 . 20. In rejoinder, Mr. Singhvi while reiterating the contentions raised by him initially, urged that regulations have the force of law as subordinate legislation required to be framed in the manner prescribed under Section 30 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. The scope of provisions made under the regulations can neither be enlarged and are required to be placed before Parliament before they become law. They may be approved, rejected or modified by the Parliament or narrowed except by amending or framing the regulation in the manner prescribed under Section 30 of the Act of 1976. Restricting the rights flowing from Regulation framed under Section 30 by executive instructions would be interfering with the legislative process. The regulations are in the form of subordinate legislation. In this regard, Mr. Singhvi relied on Union of India & Anr. v. Charanjit S. Gill & Ors., (2000) 5 SCC 742 .With this premise, it was contended that since the Staff Service Regulation, 1983 of the Thar Anchalik Gramin Bank inter alia provided vide 45. regulation 30(3) that: "the inquiry under this regulation and the procedure with the exception of the final order, may be delegated in case the person against whom proceedings are taken Is an officer who is senior to such officer and in the case of an employee to any officer. For 5o purposes of the enquiry, the officer or employee may not engage a legal practitioner." 21. Thus, no restraint could have been put on the field from which delinquent officer can nominate his defence representative by restricting the choice of the defence representative from within the employees of the Bank through general executive instructions. Such abridgement in-charge of s defence representative amounts to amendment in the regulation itself which could have been brought into effect only in the manner provided under Section 30 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Such abridgement in-charge of s defence representative amounts to amendment in the regulation itself which could have been brought into effect only in the manner provided under Section 30 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. Section 30 envisages that every regulation shall, as soon as may be after it is made under this Act by the Board of Directors, be forwarded to the Central Government and that .to Government shall cause a copy of the same to be laid before each House of Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions and if before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the regulation or both Houses agree that the regulation should not be made, the regulation shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be of no effect, as the case may be, so however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that regulation. 22. Thus, the regulation being a matter of subordinate legislation, its operation cannot be abridged in the manner pleaded by the respondents. 23. Having carefully, considered the rival contentions, one thing which stares in the face of the record is that the basic ingredients of charge as framed has not been found proved by the Enquiry Officer or by the disciplinary authority which is also in consonance with the final report submitted by the Investigating Agency in criminal case. The charge of demanding bribe by the Delinquent Officer from Pura Ram has definitely been found as not proved. The Enquiry Officer has also specifically found mat it is not possible to reach a conclusion definitely from the material on record whether Rs. 300/- the amount was received by the Delinquent Officer voluntarily or so thrust into his hands. The fact that Rs. 300/- were found at the floor at the residence of delinquent and when his fingers were put in water, the water turned purple, is of little relevance to adjudge the conduct of this case inasmuch as the receipt of the amount in the hands of the Delinquent officer is not the question in issue at all. The fact that Rs. 300/- were found at the floor at the residence of delinquent and when his fingers were put in water, the water turned purple, is of little relevance to adjudge the conduct of this case inasmuch as the receipt of the amount in the hands of the Delinquent officer is not the question in issue at all. The Delinquent Officer has not at all contended that the money has not reached his hands at any time. if the money which was chemically treated reached his hands, the turning of water into purple colour with the fingers of the Delinquent Officer also in water does not lead to any conclusion that the amount was received by the Delinquent Officer as demanded by him by way of bribe or it was delivered to him by Pura Ram as instalment of his outstanding. It is an admitted fact in these circumstances that making of demand by the delinquent has not been proved, no presumption as such can be drawn as a matter of law that he received the amount as illegal gratification. It is all the more cannot be presumed by any man of ordinary prudence, once the statement of Pura Ram that he paid the amount as bribe on demand was not found reliable by any one. Thus, very gravement of charge that Pura Ram complained that the Delinquent Officer demanded bribe from him and he paid the same in response to such demand is not proved. The question of voluntarily offering bribe by Pura Ram also cannot be presumed as it is not anyone's case, not part of the charge that Delinquent Officer accepted the money offered to him as bribe voluntarily by Pura Ram, The next question whether the Delinquent Officer accepted the amount voluntarily or was thrust in his hand forcibly. was also not found possible to reach on the basis of evidence oral or documentary. The circumstance, which has been relied on heavily by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority that if the Delinquent Officer has received the amount why did he not deposit the same in bank also an impossible inference that could be drawn by any person of ordinary prudence on proved facts. The positive case against the delinquent is that amount of Rs. The positive case against the delinquent is that amount of Rs. 300/- was seized from the floor of the house of delinquent soon after it was delivered in the hands of Delinquent Officer. How the amount seized from delinquent by the trap party before he left his house for going to bank or before banking hours commence could be deposited by the delinquent in bank account is anybody's guess. It could not be expected ordinarily from any man of ordinary prudence to deposit the amount out of his pocket, which has been seized from his residence and was in possession of the investigating agency? 24. So also the circumstance of not lodging any complaint against Pura Ram is of little relevance which can by any stretch of imagination be related to hold his conduct suspicious. The Delinquent Officer at first opportunity had stated that money was so paid to him by Pura Ram towards instalment of loan and soon after money was delivered to him at his residence, inspite of asking him to come to bank, it was thrust upon him, and the same was seized by the trap party, what complaint could be lodged by the delinquent, learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to explain. 25. Finding that because of the subsequent conduct of not reporting the matter or not depositing the amount in the Bank is a suspicious circumstances on which the acceptance of bribe can be inferred, appears to be a suspicion entertained without any material and contrary to the findings reached earlier thereto. When the amount has been recovered at the residence of the Delinquent Officer before he has reached the Bank, the non-deposit of the amount by the Delinquent Officer in the Bank subsequent thereto can possibly have no bearing on the transaction which took place at his residence. It is not a case that the amount has been recovered from him subsequently after he has reached the Bank or the banking transaction has taken place while money was with him. Reference to this part of the circumstance does not furnish any connection with the conclusion that can be reached against the delinquent in the present case. 26. As such taking the enquiry report and the disciplinary authority findings, one is left to grope in dark which part of the ingredient of charge has been proved from the material on record. 27. 26. As such taking the enquiry report and the disciplinary authority findings, one is left to grope in dark which part of the ingredient of charge has been proved from the material on record. 27. It is also apparent from the report of Enquiry Officer that so far as the finding recording by him, which can sufficiently prejudice the case of the Delinquent Officer, that it is proved that behaviour of Mr. Singaria was not bonafide and it was intended to keep the party in Dark, was not at all part of charge levelled against the delinquent nor it could be spelt out from the details of charge. What were the facts which were kept in dark from the party and with what motives, being not a part of the enquiry, no conclusion can be reached at this stage nor he can be found guilty of such conduct, about this prejudicial finding of fact, the Delinquent Officer had no opportunity to defend because he was never called upon to explain the facts on which such inference has been drawn against him by the Enquiry Officer. The finding so beyond the scope of enquiry by the Enquiry Officer has seriously prejudiced the Delinquent Officer. 28. It is further to be seen that notwithstanding the specific defence taken by the Delinquent Officer about the receipt of the amount towards the instalments which Pura Ram wanted to be deposited in his account like other creditors, no advertence has been made to this aspect of the matter. it s is also quite strange that when the complainant himself has not been believed and relied by the authorities about the demand of the bribe from him, what other material remains from which it can be said that the amount was offered by Pura Ram as bribe voluntarily as received by the Delinquent Officer as bribe. 29. As I have noticed above, the gravement of the charge is demanding of bribe from Pura Ram. On the finding of the Enquiry Officer the Investigation Officer and the Disciplinary Authority the said charge is not found to be proved. Therefore, any inference of the receipt of amount as bribe, in my opinion, is a finding which is based on no material and has been assumed merely on suspicion. On the finding of the Enquiry Officer the Investigation Officer and the Disciplinary Authority the said charge is not found to be proved. Therefore, any inference of the receipt of amount as bribe, in my opinion, is a finding which is based on no material and has been assumed merely on suspicion. Principle that no amount of suspicion can be taken the place of proof fully applies to the facts of the present case, as was enunciated by the Supreme Court in Charanjit S. Gill's case (supra). 30. Considering the scope of judicial review in the matter of disciplinary proceedings in the context of precedents relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents as well as by learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no doubt about the principle that the High Court under Article 226 has jurisdiction to interfere with the conclusion if the findings on which the punishment orders rest is not supported by any evidence at all. 31. Undoubtedly, the scope of judicial review of the orders passed by departmental authorities in a disciplinary proceedings is confirmed to the manner in which the conclusions have been reached or whether the Inquiry has been conducted by adopting procedure which is fair, impartial and does not suffer from breach of principle of natural justice. It does not extend to convert this Court into court of appeal to re-appreciate the evidence and substitute its own conclusion. About this principle there can be no doubt. The question is whether in the case at hand, the findings have been reached on the basis of any relevant material, howsoever trivial it may be or is founded on mere suspicion without any evidence to that effect. As discussed above, the case falls in the latter category. 32. Keeping in view the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer which has not been modified or upturned by the Disciplinary authority as at no point of time, he entered into the enquiry whether the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer is to be modified or reversed. The Disciplinary Authority after rejecting to contentions about the invalidity in the conduct of the enquiry, has accepted the Enquiry Report that charge against petitioner stood proved, detail conclusion to which I have adverted to above. The Disciplinary Authority after rejecting to contentions about the invalidity in the conduct of the enquiry, has accepted the Enquiry Report that charge against petitioner stood proved, detail conclusion to which I have adverted to above. Apparently after finding that the demand of bribe is not proved, it cannot be said definitely whether the amount was received by the Delinquent Officer voluntarily from Pura Ram as or it was forcibly thrust into his hands and there being no other material, the conclusion against the petitioner which can only be attributed to the suspicion that can neither be considered as evidence nor can take the place of proof of delinquency. That being the position, the petition must succeed on this ground alone. 33. In view of my aforesaid conclusion, I do not find it necessary to dwell in detail on the other contentions raised by the learned counsel on which sufficient emphasis has been led by both the learned counsel during the course of arguments except to say that prima facie, I do not find any 1 merit in the contention regarding invalidity in the appointment of Shri Anjum Parvej as Enquiry Officer nor do I find prima facie any merit in the contention of the real likelihood of bias in the conduct of enquiry by Shri Anjum Farvej. However, so far as the question of denial of representation by the representative of the Union of which the petitioner is a member, keeping in view the provisions of the Regulation, requires some deeper consideration which in view of the conclusion reached above, I deem it not proper to enter into details in this particular case. 34. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed with all consequential benefits. 35. There shall, however, be no order as to costsAppeal Allowed - Punishment Set Aside. *******