Suresh Kait, J. 1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2nd April, 2008 in OA No. 1638/2006 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. 2. The Respondent was working as Stretcher Bearer in Central Jail Hospital, Tihar, New Delhi. He was proceeded against in the Departmental Inquiry for the charges that he was carrying 10 pouches of tobacco each of 10 gm while crossing the threshold (Deodi) of the jail. 3. The respondent was charge-sheeted on 10.03.2004; Exact nature of charge in the statement of Article of charge is reproduced below: "That it has been reported by SCJ-3 that on 18.02.2004 at 4.47 PM Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Stretcher Bearer came into the Deodi of CJ-S alongwith prisoner patient Sunil S/o Rama Kant after atb btending the Court production at Shahdara for going inside the Jail. When he was crossing the Deodi he was subjected to be searched by the TSP personnel 10 pouches of swagat brand tobacco recovered from him which was concealed in his shoes. The above act on the part of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Stretcher Bearer is highly objectionable and unbecoming of a Government Servant showing lack of absolute integrity and devotion towards his duty. Thus Sh. Madan Gopal Verma has violated Rule S of CCS (Conduct) Rule, 1964." 4. An inquiry was conducted wherein the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the Respondent, lacked substance. Therefore, he was of the opinion that benefit of doubt may be given to the respondent. The Inquiry Officer submitted the report but the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings Of the Inquiry Officer and recorded the note of disagreement dated 15.06.2005. The same was communicated to the Respondent along with the inquiry report. After considering the representation of the Respondent, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage for a period of three years in the present time scale with cumulative effect on the Respondent. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Respondent filed a statutory appeal which was rejected vide order dated 17.11.2005. Thereafter, revision petition was filed against the appellate order which was also rejected by an order dated 18.05.2006. 6. The Respondent, being aggrieved, filed OA No. 1638/2007 before the CAT. The same has been allowed vide order dated 02.04.2008. 7. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Respondent filed a statutory appeal which was rejected vide order dated 17.11.2005. Thereafter, revision petition was filed against the appellate order which was also rejected by an order dated 18.05.2006. 6. The Respondent, being aggrieved, filed OA No. 1638/2007 before the CAT. The same has been allowed vide order dated 02.04.2008. 7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner pointed out statement of some of the witnesses which are as under: "PW-3 Sh. M. Rajakumar, PC-4165 of TSP Statement: I submit that on 18-02-2004 HAV 369 Venkatesan, PC-529 Parthipan, PC- 4168 Thiraviakumar of D Company were deputed for frisking duty in Jail No.3, Dehodi duty from 14.00 to 17.00 Hrs. At about 16.50.Hrs., they have seized 10 packets 10 X 10 = 100 gms tobacco coming from Shri Mukesh Kumar, hospital stretcher worker which was hidden in his both side shoes on he came inside of duty and which was hidden near by Mulaqath Room, the seized articles was handed over the DJ Duty Officer R. K. Mehto in Memo and acknowledged receipt. The Xerox copy of memo duly added the prohibited articles by the Duty Officer and Xerox copy of (Mukesh Kumar) I.D. Card and enclosed for favour at personal and necessary action please. Cross Examination: I, M. Rajakumar states that I have already submitted my statement regarding recovery of tobacco from Sh. Mukesh Kumar on 18-02-2004. The statement was shown to me by the Presenting Officer and I admit the same bearing my signature and all contents there-of are correct, exhibited as PW-1. I have given the statement four days after the incident, i.e. 18-2-2004. The tobacco was recovered from the place of entrance of the Mulakaat room of Jail No.3 inside Dehodi. There were few lockers at the entrance of Mulakaat Room. I do not know whether any of the lockers belongs to Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Charged Official.PW-4, Sh. K. Thiravia Kumar, PC -4168 of TSP Statement: I submit that on 18-02-2004, HAV 369 Venkatesan, PC-529 Parthipan, PC-4165 Rajakumar of D Company were deputed for frisking duty in Jail No.3, Dehodi Duty from 14.00 to 17.00 Hrs. I do not know whether any of the lockers belongs to Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Charged Official.PW-4, Sh. K. Thiravia Kumar, PC -4168 of TSP Statement: I submit that on 18-02-2004, HAV 369 Venkatesan, PC-529 Parthipan, PC-4165 Rajakumar of D Company were deputed for frisking duty in Jail No.3, Dehodi Duty from 14.00 to 17.00 Hrs. At about 16.50 Hrs., they have seized 10 packets, 10 X 10 = 100 gms hidden in his both side shoes on he came inside of duty and which was hidden near by Mulakath Room, the seized articles was handed over the DJ Duty Officer R. K. Mehto in Memo and acknowledged receipt. The Xerox Copy of memo duty added the prohibited articles by the Duty Officer and Xerox copy of (Mukesh Kumar) I.D. Card and enclosed for favour at personal and necessary action please. Cross Examination: I, K. Thiravia Kumar hereby admit the content, of my earlier statement, which bears my signature. The search of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Stretcher Bearer was conducted by Sh. K. Parthipan. While searching I was also present there along with Sh. Rajakumar (PC-4165). The items were not seized by me personally. The tobacco was recovered from Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Charged Official at the inside entry gate of the Mulakaat Jungla, CJ-3, again cleared that it is inside the Mulakaat Room. I along with Sh. Rajakumar, PC entered the Mulakaat Jungla. PW-5, Sh. K. Parthipan, PC-529 of TSP Statement: I submit that on 18-02-2004 HAV 369 Venkatesh, PC-4165 Rajakumar, PC-4168 Thirviakumar of D Company were deputed for frisking duty in Jail NO.3, Dehodi Duty from 14.00 to 17.00 Hrs. At about 16.50 Hrs., they have seized 10 packets 10 X 10 =100 gms tobacco coming from Shri Mukesh Kumar, hospital stretcher worker which was hidden in his both side shoes on he came inside of duty and which was hidden near by Mulaqath Room, the seized articles was handed over the DJ Duty Officer R. K. Mehto in Memo and acknowledged receipt. The Xerox copy of memo duty added the prohibited articles by the Duty Officer and Xerox copy of (Mukesh Kumar) I.D. Card and enclosed for favour at personal and necessary action please. Cross Examination: I, Sh. K. Parthipan, PC- 529 states that I have already submitted my statement regarding recovery of tobacco from Sh. Mukesh Kumar on 18-02-2004. The Xerox copy of memo duty added the prohibited articles by the Duty Officer and Xerox copy of (Mukesh Kumar) I.D. Card and enclosed for favour at personal and necessary action please. Cross Examination: I, Sh. K. Parthipan, PC- 529 states that I have already submitted my statement regarding recovery of tobacco from Sh. Mukesh Kumar on 18-02-2004. The statement was shown to me by the Presenting Officer and I admit that the same bearing my signature and all contents there-of are correct. I have given the said statement on 18-02-2004. I do not know English. I had given my statement in Tamil language to my officer who had translated it into English. I had taken the search of Sh. Mukesh Kumar, Charged Official. The search was affected from the shoes at the entrance of the Mulakaat Room of Jail NO.3. There was no locker almirah at the entrance of the Mulakaat Room. The search party can search any official at any place inside the, Dehodi on doubt. In continuation to my earlier statement dated 26-08-2004, the Presenting Officer produced the seized items in sealed cover, which was shown to all present. The sealed cover is bearing the signature of Sh. Ram Kumar Mehto, as it is being tallied with the signature appended on his statement dated 18-02-2004. The sealed envelope was opened in the presence of all present and only one pair of shoes C sports marked SDS Campus, No.7) was found. However 10 packet of tobacco reported seized vide seizure memo on 1182158 dated 18-02-2004 were not found in the sealed envelope. Since the seized tobacco was not found in the sealed envelope, the charged official declined to cross-examine the PW-5." 8. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the three witnesses have supported the charges but the E.O. had ignored the same. We have carefully gone through the statements and reached at the conclusion that all are singing different tunes. None of the witness supports the charges. 9. Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that all the three witnesses have supported the charges but the E.O. had ignored the same. We have carefully gone through the statements and reached at the conclusion that all are singing different tunes. None of the witness supports the charges. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent invited our attention towards the letters written by different cops to the Superintendent of Tihar Jail at page 44 to 47 of this writ petition, one of them, as sample, is reproduced as under: "From M Raj Kumar D Coy TSP VIII Bn New Delhi-64 To The Superintendent CJ - III Tihar Jail New Delhi -64 Sir Sub: Seizure of prohibited articles while frisking in Jail No. III Deody duty on 18.2.2004 at 1400 hrs to 1700 hrs I submit that on 18.02.04 HAV 369 Venkateran, PC 529 Parthipan, PC Aiby Thinavir Kumar of D Company were deputed for frisking duty in Jail No. III deody duty from 1400 hrs to 1700 hrs at about 16.50 hrs they have seized 10 packets 10X10 = 100 grams Tobacco comny from Shri Mukesh Kumar Hospital stretcher worker, which was hidden in his both side shoes on his come inside of duty and which was hidden near by Mulaqath room the seized articles was handed over the DJ duty officer R K Mahto in memos and acknowledged receipt. The zerox copy of memo duty order the prohibited articles by the duty officer and zerox copy of Mukesh Kumar I D card enclosed for favour of personal and necessary action please. Thank you Yours faithfully Sd/xxx Raj Kumar 10. We have observed that all the four statements verbatim are same and stereotyped, If we carefully go through the meaning of these highlighted portions, it does not make any sense or meaning. 11. The Respondent herein, in his statement had rebutted all the allegations made against; him and stated that he was wearing his own footwear at that point of time. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out specifically, the highlighted portion of the four letters written by Raj Kumar, D Coy TSP VIII Bn, M.Vankateram HA V 369, M. Thiravia Kumar PC 4168 and K. Parthipan PC 529 addressed to the Superintendent, CJ-III Tihar Jail, New, Delhi-64. Learned counsel for the respondent pointed out specifically, the highlighted portion of the four letters written by Raj Kumar, D Coy TSP VIII Bn, M.Vankateram HA V 369, M. Thiravia Kumar PC 4168 and K. Parthipan PC 529 addressed to the Superintendent, CJ-III Tihar Jail, New, Delhi-64. Learned counsel for the Respondent has also pointed out that the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, all the PWs stated before the Inquiry Officer that "Mukesh Kumar, Respondent herein which was hidden in his both side shoes on his come inside on duty and which was hidden nearby Mulaqath room. The seized articles was handed over the DJ duty officer in memos and acknowledged receipt". 12. These statements create confusion, as no inference could be drawn whether the shoes of the Respondent were lying near Mulaqath room or he was caught at the time of search, while he was wearing the shoes. 1fhe was wearing the shoes and on search, the pouches of tobacco were recovered from the Respondent then the position would have been different but that is not the case of the Petitioner. 1fwe go by the version of learned counsel for the Petitioner, who states that the shoes were lying near the Mulaqath room and pouches were recovered from those shoes only, then we are of the considered opinion that the Respondent herein cannot be held responsible for the recovery from the shoes, which were lying near the Mulaquath room, as the case of the Petitioner is. 13. Learned counsel for the Respondent has further submitted that the seizure memo does not have the signatures of the Respondent from whom 100gm of tobacco in 10 pouches were allegedly found. He has further drawn our attention to the statement of the Constable Vankateram, who had signed the seizure memo (as stated in his cross-examination before the Inquiry Officer), though the seizure memo No. 1182158 was not prepared by him. He further pointed out that the sealed envelope containing the seized material i.e. shoes and bags of tobacco was opened before the Inquiry Officer and only the shoes were found inside but there was no tobacco. The Inquiry Officer has taken aforesaid fact into account while reaching the conclusion that the charges levelled against the Respondent lacked substance. He further pointed out that the sealed envelope containing the seized material i.e. shoes and bags of tobacco was opened before the Inquiry Officer and only the shoes were found inside but there was no tobacco. The Inquiry Officer has taken aforesaid fact into account while reaching the conclusion that the charges levelled against the Respondent lacked substance. In the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer has mentioned that the statement of all the witnesses revealed that shoes carrying prohibited items were lying near the Mulakat room. However, the charged officer was not wearing the said shoes. 14. We have gone through the report of the Inquiry Officer and order of the Tribunal. Learned Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kumar, Endow, 1994 (2) SCC 537 wherein it was observed: "the imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the disciplinary authority. It may be open to the appellate authority to interfere with it but not to the High Court or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226. The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review". However, their Lordships have also quoted with approval that the power of judicial review is meant "to ensure that the individual receive s 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, (Per Lord Marylebone in Chief Constable v. Evans." and in case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, 1995 (G)SCC 749. "The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a matter inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or whether the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case." 15. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case." 15. As per the statement of Article of Charges, 10 pouches of "Swagat brand" tobacco were recovered from the respondent which he had concealed in his shoes. We have gone through all the statements made by three witnesses. Each and everyone stated differently. Not even a single witness supported this allegation/charge. 16. Keeping the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the parties and legal submission, we find no discrepancy in the orders of the Tribunal. This is a case of “No Evidence" against the Respondent. Therefore, this is not a case where we can interfere with the order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India passed by the CAT in OA No. 1638/2006 dated 02.04.2008. 17. We hereby uphold the order of the CAT. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/-.