SABHAJEET YADAV, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 5. 8. 2006 passed by respondent No. 2 contained in Annexure 6 of the writ petition, whereby the petitioner has been removed from service while working as bus conductor in U. P. S. R. T. C. ; It is stated that earlier also the petitioner was removed from service and he approached this Court by means of Writ Petition no. 24378 of 2001/ While allowing the writ petition petitioners removal from service has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 3. 4. 2002. After the aforesaid judgment the petitioner was reinstated in service and was performing his duties without any complaint. It is further stated that due to aforesaid reinstatement of the petitioner the Assistant Regional Manager Sri Girish Chandra sharma was carrying malice against the petitioner and in furtherance of the same he again carved out a case against him and in July, 2000 a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner. The charges levelled In the said charge-sheet were grounded merely on the fact that the petitioner was Conductor of the bus No. URY 907 and carrying the passengers In bus on 6. 7. 2000 on Oral-Jhansi route. It was alleged that the said bus was given signal to stop for checking by checking squad consisting of sri Bhagirathi Singh and Radhey Shyam-Depot incharge but the petitioner did not stop the bus, consequently bus could not be checked by the checking squad of the Corporation, therefore, the petitioner is guilty of misconduct carrying Illegal passengers causing loss to Corporation and flouting the order of superior authorities of the department. In support of the said charges only material upon which the reliance was sought for in the charge-sheet was letter of Sri Bhagirathi Singh, who was alleged to be member of checking squad of the Corporation, the charge-sheet was given to the petitioner on 22. 7. 2000 which was replied by him on 12. 8. 2000. The copy of the charge-sheet and reply to the charge-sheet are on record as annexures 3 and 4 of the writ petition. The petitioner has also filed copy of the said letter of Sri bhagirathi Singh as Annexure 5 of the writ petition. 7. 2000 which was replied by him on 12. 8. 2000. The copy of the charge-sheet and reply to the charge-sheet are on record as annexures 3 and 4 of the writ petition. The petitioner has also filed copy of the said letter of Sri bhagirathi Singh as Annexure 5 of the writ petition. It is further stated that the Inquiry Officer has considered only written complaint given by Sri bhagirathi Singh, wherein it was alleged that the bus was tried to be stopped through signal given by driver of the car of checking squad but bus did not stop for checking. It is also stated that after submission of reply of the charged-sheet, the Inquiry Officer has submitted his report but the copy of which has never been supphed to the petitioner on the basis of said inquiry report the petitioner has been removed from service by respondent No. 2 vide order dated 5. 8. 2006 contained in Annexure 6 of the writ petition. It is further stated that in the impugned order incorrect statement of fact has been made to the effect that inquiry report along with show cause notice dated 29. 7. 2004 was given to the petitioner. In fact the petitioner was never given any copy of the inquiry report and show cause notice dated 29. 7. 2004 and reminder- dated 13. 4. 2005. ( 2 ) HEARD Sri V. K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S. Shekhar for the petitioner and Sri b. S. Chauhan holding brief of Sri P. S. Chauhan for. respondent Nos. 1 and 2. ( 3 ) IT is submitted by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in counter-affidavit the fact that no show cause notice along with inquiry report was served upon the petitioner, has been denied but no material has been placed alongwith the counter affidavit to establish that as to when the said show cause notice along with the inquiry report was served upon the petitioner. Therefore, In absence of necessary material in support of the said assertion in counter-affidavit, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted. Therefore, i am of the considered, opinion that no show cause notice along with inquiry report has been served upon the petitioner and the petitioner has been denied opportunity to defend his case. Therefore, In absence of necessary material in support of the said assertion in counter-affidavit, the submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner has to be accepted. Therefore, i am of the considered, opinion that no show cause notice along with inquiry report has been served upon the petitioner and the petitioner has been denied opportunity to defend his case. ( 4 ) NOT only this but learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted and demonstrated from the record that there is nothing to indicate that Inquiry Officer or Disciplinary Authority has ever informed the petitioner about the date and place of holding disciplinary Inquiry against him and the petitioner has ever appeared before Inquiry Officer during Inquiry. From a perusal of the Impugned order also there is nothing to indicate as to whether any witness was examined In support of the charge levelled against the petitioner before Inquiry Officer and petitioner has ever been asked to cross-examine any such witness and also adduce his defence evidence before Inquiry Officer. According to him, as a matter of fact, no inquiry at all has been held against the petitioner. It appears that inquiry report, if any has been prepared by the Inquiry Officer and submitted to the Disciplinary Authority straight way without holding any such inquiry. thereupon, acting on such inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed impugned order without any show cause notice given to the petitioner along with the copy of inquiry report. Therefore, it is a case of total non-compliance of principles of natural justice while holding disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner, as such entire disciplinary inquiry should be held to be non est and nullity. I have considered the aforesaid submission of learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through records and i found that the submissions of learned Counsel for the petitioner have substance and deserve to be accepted as correct. ( 5 ) ON merits too, learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the only charge against the petitioner was that he did not stop the bus in spite of signal given for stopping the bus by the checking squad of the* Department, whereas it is not in dispute that the bus was driven by the driver and the duty to stop the bus was on the driver on receiving the signal from checking squad. The petitioner, who was conductor of the bus, was not supposed to receive signal while sitting at back seat of the bus but the driver of the bus has been exonerated from the charges merely by giving a warning to him and petitioner has been removed from service on mere suspicion, which could not take the place of proof or reasonable doubt against the petitioner in connection of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him. In the counter-affidavit fired on behalf of the Corporation aforesaid fact that driver of the bus has been given merely warning has not been denied. Besides, this, learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it was nowhere mentioned in the findings of Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner was aware of the. said signal despite thereof he could not direct the bus driver to stop the bus and there is no material, on record that even in spite of non-stop of the bus, the checking squad had chased the bus and checked up thereafter and found some passengers carried by the petitioner without any ticket, therefore, mere suspicion by the departmental authorities that the petitioners bus was not stopped despite signal given to it by the departmental authorities, he might have been carrying the passengers without ticket for some monetary gain cannot take the place of proof or reasonable doubt against the petitioner. ( 6 ) IN support of his submission learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Constitution Bench decision of Honble Apex Court rendered in Union of India v. H. C. Goel, 1964 (9) FLR 161 (SC): AIR i 964 SC 364 Where in paras 23 and 27 of the decision the Honble Apex Court has been pleased to observe as under: "23. . . . . . . The only test which we can legitimately apply in dealing with this part of the respondents case is, is there any evidence on which a finding can b,e made against the respondent that charge No. 3 was proved against him. In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. In exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 on such a plea, the High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence in support of a particular conclusion. That is a matter which is within the competence of the authority which deals with , the question; but the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence, illegally the impugned conclusion follows or not. Applying this test, we are inclined to hold that the respondents grievance is well founded, because, in our opinion, the finding, which is implicit in the appellants order dismissing the respondent that charge number 3 is proved against him Is based on no evidence. 27. . . . . . . But the suspicion entertained by Mr. Rajagopalan cannot, in law, be treated as evidence against the respondent even though there is no doubt that Mr. Rajagopalan is a straightforward and an honest officer. Though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the appellant to root out corruption from public service, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquires. It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials In Court may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquires held under the statutory rules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 7 ) IN this connection it would also be useful to refer few decisions of Honble Apex Court which have material bearing with the question in controversy involved in the case. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " ( 7 ) IN this connection it would also be useful to refer few decisions of Honble Apex Court which have material bearing with the question in controversy involved in the case. In Syed Rahimuddin v. Director general C. S. I. R. and others, 2001 (89) FLR 427 (SC): 2001 (9) SCC 575 while dealing with the scope of judicial review in context of conclusion or finding of fact arrived at in a departmental inquiry by the inquiry Officer and/or Disciplinary Authority in para 5 of the decision Honble Apex Court held as under: "5. It is well-settled that a conclusion or a finding of fact arrived at in a disciplinary inquiry can be interfered with by the Court only, when there are no materials for the said conclusion, or that on the materials, the conclusion cannot be that of a reasonable man. Having examined the report of the Inquiry Officer, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the findings of the Inquiry Officer cannot be held to. be findings based on no evidence. " In Sher Bahadur v. Union of India and others, 2002 (95) FLR 11 (SC): 2002 (7) SCC 142 while explaining the meaning of expression "sufficiency of evidence" Honble Apex Court in para 7 of the decision, held that"sufficiency of evidence" postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no evidence in law. Para 7 is quoted as under: "7. It may be, observed that the expression "sufficiency of evidence" postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence, however voluminous It may be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and the charged officer, is no evidence in law. the mere fact that the Inquiry Officer has noted in his report, "in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry", would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence. . . . . . . the mere fact that the Inquiry Officer has noted in his report, "in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry", would not in principle satisfy the rule of sufficiency of evidence. . . . . . . " ( 8 ) THUS, from the aforestated legal principles it is clear that in exercising jurisdiction under Article 2216 of the constitution, me High Court cannot consider the question about the sufficiency of adequacy of evidence support of a particular conclusion, that is a matter whicn is within the competence of the authority wnicn deals with the question: but High court can and must require whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion or on the basis of such evidence or materials the conclusion can be that of a reasonable man? In other words, if whole of the evidence led In the inquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against delinquent? And further the expression sufficiency of evidence postulates existence of some evidence which links the charged officer with the misconduct alleged against him. Evidence however voluminous, it may be, which is neither relevant in a broad sense nor establishes any nexus between the alleged misconduct and charged officer is no. evidence in the eye of law. ( 9 ) NOW applying the aforestated principle in given facts and circumstances of the case I find that respondent-Corporation has not led any evidence in support of the charges levelled in the charge-sheet against the petitioner, as neither any member of checking squad was examined before the inquiry officer nor even driver of car of checking squad was examined before inquiry officer and made out any case against the petitioner and thereafter he | was given any opportunity to repel those charges. The letter of Sri Bhaglrathl Singh, who was member of the checking squad, was also not proved by any person before Inquiry Officer. Even the said letter is taken as true, even then it cannot be assumed that since the bus was not stopped on receipt of signal from checking squad, therefore, it was carrying passengers without ticket. In my opinion such fact could be proved only after getting it stopped by chasing and checking done thereafter. Even the said letter is taken as true, even then it cannot be assumed that since the bus was not stopped on receipt of signal from checking squad, therefore, it was carrying passengers without ticket. In my opinion such fact could be proved only after getting it stopped by chasing and checking done thereafter. But since no such steps were taken by the checking squad, therefore, it cannot be assumed merely by suspicion and speculation which cannot take the place of proof, howsoever strong such suspicion may be. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of the charges on mere suspicion and speculations without any proof of the same, accordingly the conclusion drawn by Disciplinary Authority cannot be sustained, and the impugned order dated 5. 8. 2006 is hereby quashed. ( 10 ) THE respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service With full back-wages and continuity of service from the date of removal from service till date of his actual reinstatement and further continue him in service ana pay his salary unless his services are dispensed with in accordance with law. ( 11 ) WITH the aforesaid observation and direction, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. .