JUDGMENT (B.R. Gavai, J.) The petition challenges the order dated 16.04.2006 passed by the respondent no.4 vide which the petitioner has been held to be guilty of charge no.2 and thereby punishment for compulsory retirement from services with full pensionary benefits with effect from 16.04.2006 has been imposed against the petitioner and the order dated 22.01.2007 passed by respondent no.2 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present petitioner. 2. The facts in brief giving rise to the petition are as under: The petitioner was serving in Central Industrial Security Force as a constable. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted at Mormugao Port Trust. On the relevant date i.e. on 30.10.2005 the petitioner was posted at Chowgule gate which is an inner gate to regulate the traffic and normally dock entry permits are not checked at that gate. It is not in dispute that there is a main gate to enter inside the port, which is the gate at which the entry permits are checked. 3. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the report of PW2 Capt. Anil Panjwani who was working as Deputy Conservator on Port and Mr. S. K. Athankar, who was at the relevant time working as a Police Inspector. 4. It is alleged that on 30.10.2005 when PW2 Capt. Anil Panjwani along with one Mr. A. R. Rao, had gone to visit the harbour, and at about 10.00 hours when they were returning, at that time PW2 apprehended the constable who was posted at Chowgule gate while taking money from the driver of the vehicle to permit the entry inside the harbour. It is the case of PW2 that he had seen the constable taking a currency note from the driver of the vehicle at the gate and saw him keeping it in the front of his shirt. It is his case that the petitioner was asked to remove the money which he refused to do so. It is further stated by him that during this time Mr. Athankar, Inspector was seen approaching at the spot. PW2 informed the said Mr. Athankar PW1 about the petitioner taking some currency note and hiding it in his shirt for permitting the entry to the vehicle and their occupants who were not having dock entry permit. It is further stated by him that during this time Mr. Athankar, Inspector was seen approaching at the spot. PW2 informed the said Mr. Athankar PW1 about the petitioner taking some currency note and hiding it in his shirt for permitting the entry to the vehicle and their occupants who were not having dock entry permit. It is stated that thereafter PW2 pulled out the hidden note of Rs.100/- from the front of his shirt in the presence of Mr. Athankar. Thereafter, two vehicles which were awaiting for entry were told to go out of the port premises through the same gate from which they had entered. 5. On the basis of the said allegations, the following two charges came to be framed. “Charge paragraph-I Constable, Shri Ashok Kumar, force No. 882220110, CISF, MPT, Goa was posted for duty on 30.10.05 from 5.00 to 13.00 hrs for first shift on Chowgule Gate. On 30.10.05, about 10.20 hrs he permitted to enter the vehicle No. GA-02-9589 inside the port through Chowgule gate without gate pass. To give permission to enter the vehicle without a gate pass to the sensitive places like port is a negligence of duty. Neglected the instruction of security measures on duty place. Being a responsible member of armed force it is a proof of terrible negligence of duty, disgraceful and serious misconduct. Charge paragraph-II Constable, Shri Ashok Kumar, force No. 882220110 CISF, MPT Goa was posted for duty on 30.10.05 from 5.00 to 13.00 hrs for first shift on Chowgule Gate. It has been found that he was involved in accepting Rs.100/- in the form of bribe from the driver of vehicle No. GA-02- 9589, since the vehicle and the person were not having the entry pass, which was reached in Chowgule gate about 10.20 hrs. Being a responsible member of armed force, it is a proof of terrible negligence of duty, indiscipline and serious misconduct. 6. In so far as the first charge is concerned, the disciplinary authority found that the charge no. 1 regarding the negligence of duty, disgraceful and serious misconduct is concerned, the same was not proved. 7. However, in so far as the charge no. 6. In so far as the first charge is concerned, the disciplinary authority found that the charge no. 1 regarding the negligence of duty, disgraceful and serious misconduct is concerned, the same was not proved. 7. However, in so far as the charge no. 2 is concerned, the disciplinary authority found from the evidence of PW1 and PW2, that the second charge was proved regarding the petitioner taking an amount of Rs.100/- from the driver of the vehicle and hiding it in his shirt. Being aggrieved thereby, an appeal was preferred, the same was also dismissed. Hence, the present petition. 8. Heard Shri Vijaychandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. Mr. Vijaychandran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the main entry was Gate no.2 wherein the Sub-Inspector and the Head Constable were posted. He submits that though it was their duty to check the entry pass and though they were charged, they have been given punishment of only withholding of one increment for a period of one year and reduction of salary for a period of one year. He further submits that the inquiry has been conducted by giving total go by to the principles of justice. He submits that the main witness i.e. the driver of the vehicle has not been examined and there are material confrontations between PW1 and PW2. 10. Mr. Amonkar, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the scope of interference by this Court in the departmental proceedings is very limited. He submits that the inquiry was conducted in fair manner and not by giving go by to the principles of justice and it is not permissible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and sit in an appeal over the decision of the disciplinary authority. The learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 3053 in the case of Union of India and other V/s R. K. Sharma. 11. In the present case, it can clearly be seen that the main duty to check the vehicles as to whether the vehicles entering into the gate were possessing entry pass or not was at the entry gate i.e. Gate no.2. 11. In the present case, it can clearly be seen that the main duty to check the vehicles as to whether the vehicles entering into the gate were possessing entry pass or not was at the entry gate i.e. Gate no.2. It is not disputed by the respondents that the Sub-Inspector and the Head Constable who were posted at Gate no.2 and/or were in-charge of Gate no.2 to check the vehicles though having been found guilty, have been imposed punishment of withholding one increment for a period of one year and reduction in salary by one year. 12. Be that as it may, we do not wish to go into the issue of discriminatory treatment adopted against the petitioner and the issue of shockingly disproportionate punishment as compared to the two other delinquents, since we find that the petition deserves to be allowed on the other ground. 13. In the present case, the respondents have mainly relied upon the evidence of PW1 Mr. S. K. Athankar, Inspector and PW2 Capt. Anil Panjwani, Dy. Conservator of port. It is relevant to note from the evidence of PW2 himself that he has specifically stated that the Chowgule gate was only an inner gate to regulate the traffic and normally dock entry permits are not checked at this gate. In his evidence he has stated that he had seen the present petitioner taking currency note of Rs.100/- from the driver of the vehicle and thereafter keeping it in his shirt. He states that thereafter he took out the amount of Rs.100/- and gave it to the driver of the vehicle. As against this the evidence of PW1 Police inspector would show that he was informed about the petitioner receiving the amount of Rs.100/- from the driver of the vehicle by PW2. On being confronted, he states that the petitioner refused to give note of Rs.100/- and therefore he lifted the shirt of the petitioner and a note of Rs.100/- fell down from his pocket which he returned to the driver of the vehicle. 14. It can thus be seen that the evidence of two witnesses is totally contradictory. In any case, if an amount of Rs.100/- was recovered from the petitioner, the same ought to have been seized from him under a panchanama as that would have been valid evidence against the petitioner. 14. It can thus be seen that the evidence of two witnesses is totally contradictory. In any case, if an amount of Rs.100/- was recovered from the petitioner, the same ought to have been seized from him under a panchanama as that would have been valid evidence against the petitioner. We do not understand the propriety of either PW1 and PW2 returning that amount to the driver of the vehicle. Apart that, the driver of the vehicle from whom the amount had allegedly taken was the most important witness who could have deposed regarding the factual aspect. 15. We are aware that the parameters of an inquiry in a criminal trial and the inquiry in departmental proceedings are quite different. It is not necessary in the departmental inquiry to prove the case beyond the reasonable doubt as is required in a criminal trial. However, to decide the case on the basis of preponderance of probability, there has to be some material which can be found to be trustworthy by the authority. Not seizing the currency note of Rs.100/-, totally contradictory evidence of PW1 and PW2 as to how the said note was seized and returning of the same to the driver which was the most important part of the evidence against the petitioner and not examining the driver of the vehicle, in our view cast a serious doubt regarding the fairness conducted in the inquiry. The nature of punishment given to the two delinquents whose role was much greater than the petitioner again casts serious doubt about fairness in the inquiry. 16. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the evidence of PW1 and PW2 and particularly when the authority had come to the conclusion that the charge no.1 on the basis of the said evidence was not proved, has erred in holding that the charge no.2 was proved against the petitioner. 17. In that view of the matter, we hold that the petition deserves to be allowed and as such is allowed. However, the petitioner has not placed any substantial material on record to substantiate the claim that he was not gainfully employed during the period when he was out of employment and as such, we are not inclined to grant the back wages to the petitioner. 18. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). However, the petitioner has not placed any substantial material on record to substantiate the claim that he was not gainfully employed during the period when he was out of employment and as such, we are not inclined to grant the back wages to the petitioner. 18. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). Though we hold that the petitioner is not entitled for back wages during the period when he was out of employment, he would be entitled for the continuity for all purposes. The petitioner however, would be at liberty to withdraw the pension which he was entitled as per the order of the disciplinary authority and which he has not withdrawn so far.