Judgment ( 1. ) THIS petition was initially filed in this Court on 5-7-88 and was registered as M. P. No. 2265/88. However, on account of establishment of M. P. State Administrative Tribunal this petition was transferred to it and later on, on account of abolition of the Tribunal this petition has been received back by this Court for its adjudication. ( 2. ) THIS petition was originally filed by Ram Kumar Mishra (hereinafter referred to as the employee) who died during the pendency of this writ petition and Smt. Sushila Devi and others arc his legal representatives. The employee assailed order of compulsory retirement dated 2-6-1988 (Annexure D) which was passed on account of punishment, after holding departmental enquiry. The employee was charge-sheeted and two charges were framed against him. The first charge was in respect of his daughter Ku. Deepu Mishra that employee had improved the percentage of marks to 51 % of the total marks and marked her successful in 4th class in the mark-sheet. The second charge is in respect of his daughter Ku. Rajneeti Mishra and it relates to tampering her mark-sheet of 9th Class and the marks obtained in subjects of Mathematics and Science were erased and in their place high marks were inserted. The allegation is that by this method the employee attempted to secure scholarship to his daughters. The employee refuted the charges and after holding the departmental enquiry since charges were found to be proved, the employee was punished by an order retiring him compulsorily w. e. f. 3-6-1988 (Annexure D ). ( 3. ) THOUGH the charge No. 1 relates to improving percentage of marks of Deepu Mishra, who is daughter of the employee, and it was found by the enquiry officer that the percentage of marks is improved but there is no evidence in this regard that it was the employee who himself scored the marks and increased the percentage. Similarly in regard to charge No. 2 which is in regard to erasing original marks of employees daughter Ku. Rajneeti Mishra the finding of enquiry officer is that by tempering the marks they were increased in Mathematics and Science from 12 to 65 in Mathematics subject and from 25 to 77 in Science subject, but there is no evidence that it was the employee who tampered the mark-sheet. ( 4. Rajneeti Mishra the finding of enquiry officer is that by tempering the marks they were increased in Mathematics and Science from 12 to 65 in Mathematics subject and from 25 to 77 in Science subject, but there is no evidence that it was the employee who tampered the mark-sheet. ( 4. ) THE moot question for consideration is whether the employee tampered the mark-sheets of his abovesaid two daughters and/or he was knowing that the mark-sheets of his daughter are tampered and he knowingly that the mark-sheets arc tampered, submitted them in the office in order to procure scholarship. Learned Counsel for the respondents could not point out, nor there appears to be any evidence that the employee tampered the mark-sheets or he was knowing that the mark-sheets which he was submitting are tampered documents. In this view of the matter, the finding of the enquiry officer and the order of punishment passed by Disciplinary Authority can not be sustained in the eye of law. Learned Counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on decision of State Bank of Patiala v. S. K. Sharma ( AIR 1996 SC 1669 ) but the said decision is tangentially off the point and similarly the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil ( AIR 2000 SC 22 ) is not applicable in the present case. Let us assume that the employee submitted the tampered mark-sheets, however, the crux of the case is whether employee himself tampered those mark-sheets or he was having knowledge that the mark-sheets which are being submitted by him are tampered mark-sheets. There is no specific finding or the evidence in that regard holding that the employee tampered the mark-sheets and submitted them in the office or he was knowing that he was submitting the tampered mark-sheets therefore, the view of this Court is that the impugned order of punishment retiring the employee compulsorily can not be sustained in the eye of law and the same is hereby quashed. ( 5. ) RESULTANTLY this petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Since the employee had already died and his legal representatives are on record, they shall be entitled for all consequential benefits. Looking to the facts and circumstances, the parties are directed to bear their own costs.