Order 1. This writ petition has been filed challenging the orders passed by the 3rd and 2nd respondents i.e. disciplinary authority and appellate authority dated 04.04.2002 and 24.04.2002 respectively, removing petitioner from service. 2. The short facts leading to filing of the present writ petition may be stated as follows: Charge – I For having misappropriated the amount to a tune of Rs.41,059-00 from May 1999 to April 2000 at Nagarkurnool Depot duly collecting the amount every month from Sri M.Srinivasulu, Contractor, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(x) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. Charge – II For having unauthorizedly collected the amount from Sri M.Srinivasulu, Contractor and disbursed less amount to the workers of the contractor from May 1999 to April 2000, and used the remaining amount for your personal needs, which constitutes misconduct under Reg.28(xxxi) of APSRTC Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1963. 3. It is not in dispute that a domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer held that charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved. Then the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service on the petitioner by order dated 04.04.2002. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. However, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by order dated 24.04.2002. 4. According to the petitioner basing on an anonymous complaint the respondents issued charged sheet and conducted enquiry, which is contrary to the circulars issued by the respondent corporation. It is submitted that the respondents refused to furnish the documents to the petitioner to submit his detailed explanation. On that the petitioner approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P.No.24090/2000 and the same was disposed of by order dated 15.12.2000 directing the respondents to furnish relevant documents to the petitioner. Later on, the petitioner submitted his detailed explanation, which was not considered by the respondents and erroneously passed the removal order. 5. According to the respondents, the petitioner misappropriated an amount of Rs.41,059/-and the same was proved during the preliminary enquiry. The petitioner had needlessly indulged himself in the activity of disbursement of wages to the workers of the contractor for which he is no way connected and has misappropriated the amount and therefore, he is liable to be removed from service and this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petition. 6. I have perused the material available on record. 7. 6. I have perused the material available on record. 7. From the preliminary enquiry report as well as the statements of the witnesses recorded during the course of the enquiry, the following material was brought on record before the Enquiry Officer. 8. The enquiry was initiated on an anonymous report alleged to have been submitted by the workers who were working under the contractor. The contractor himself also submitted a petition against the writ petitioner. In both the complaints, it was alleged that the petitioner who is a Mechanical Foreman, though his duty is not to disburse the amounts to the workers, indulged in disbursing the amounts to the workers, disbursed lesser amount and thereby misappropriated some amounts. However, in the course of the enquiry, the witnesses examined did not fully support the charges levelled against the petitioner. The contractor stated that he and the petitioner were residing in a common room, he himself was distributing the amounts to the workers, but in his absence the petitioner on his instructions, distributed the amounts to the workers for two months. 9. The Assistant Mechanical Foreman stated that the cheques were issued by the department in favour of the contractor, after encashing the cheques, the contractor was only making payments and whenever the contractor was absent, the petitioner used to make the payments. 10. The Accountant of the Depot stated that the details of the payments to the workers were not submitted to him, he used to handover the account payee cheque to the contractor and was obtaining acknowledgment from the contractor and he is not aware of the cancellation of the account payee cheques. 11. However, all the witnesses in the preliminary enquiry stated that the petitioner himself was making payments in less to the workers towards their wages. But they did not support the said version fully in their statements before the Enquiry Officer in the regular departmental enquiry. 12. The Enquiry Officer basing on the aforesaid evidence, recorded a finding that the petitioner who is a Mechanical Foreman unnecessarily indulged himself in the activity of the disbursement of wages to the workers and contractor for which he is no way concerned and therefore, under the circumstances and in view of the evidence forthcoming it is proved beyond all reasonable doubt that the petitioner misappropriated the amount as alleged. 13. 13. In this connection, it is pertinent to note that no worker was examined in the course of enquiry to say that he was paid the lesser amount of wages and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine on the said aspect. 14. The disciplinary authority did not scrutinize the evidence adduced before the Enquiry Officer and he simply concurred with the findings of Enquiry Officer and after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, imposed on him a punishment of removal from service. 15. The disciplinary authority, however, held that in the charge it was alleged that the amount to a tune of Rs.41,059/- was misappropriated by the petitioner, but the amounts drawn month-wise from May, 1999 to April, 2000 and payments made to the contractor and balance amount retained with the petitioner works out to Rs.39,829-98 ps only, and therefore, the disciplinary authority stated that in the charge it was erroneously shown as Rs.41,059/- was misappropriated instead of Rs.39,829-98 ps. The disciplinary authority further held that the petitioner who is a Mechanical Foreman had needlessly indulged in the activity of disbursement of wages to the workers of the contractor for which he is no way connected and under the circumstances and the evidence abundantly available in the case it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the delinquent has misappropriated the amount of Rs.39,829-98 ps. 16. Absolutely, there was nothing before the Enquiry Officer to point out as to in what way and in respect of how much amount the petitioner indulged in misappropriation. No documents have been placed before the Enquiry Officer to prove misappropriation of the aforesaid amount by the petitioner. The difference of misappropriated amount in the charge and the finding of the disciplinary authority is of course not of much consequence, but the crucial aspect requires consideration in the instant case is that there is no iota of evidence brought on record before the Enquiry Officer showing the misappropriation by the petitioner except the oral inconsistent statements of the three witnesses examined by the department before the Enquiry Officer. 17. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal with the following order: “I have gone through the entire file together with the connected records. The charges are of serious nature. 17. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal with the following order: “I have gone through the entire file together with the connected records. The charges are of serious nature. The action taken by the Regional Manager in removing him from service is fit and proper. As this is a case of misappropriation of amounts, the appeal submitted by the appellant does not require any consideration. Hence, the appeal is rejected.” 18. Obviously, the finding given by the Enquiry Officer, the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority are not based on evidence which was forthcoming against the petitioner, more particularly, with regard to the misappropriation allegedly committed by him. The orders clearly show that they are passed as a result of non-application of mind. It is true that the standard of proof while in a criminal case is beyond all reasonable doubt, but in a departmental enquiry, it is the preponderance of probability. But the authorities in the department who handled the issue of the petitioner at various stages have to apply their mind to find out whether the charge alleged against the petitioner was proved by the standard of preponderance of probability. In this case, as already said there is no iota of evidence regarding the misappropriation of wages committed by the petitioner. There is oral evidence only to the effect that the petitioner on some occasions indulged in disbursing the wages to the workers though it is not his duty. Basing on the statements of the witnesses that the petitioner indulged in distribution of wages to the workers, it cannot be said that the charge of misappropriation has been proved. No worker was examined at the enquiry to show that he was paid lesser amount of wages by the petitioner. 19. The contention of the petitioner is that while he was at the verge of promotion, he was unnecessarily implicated in the charge of misappropriation as he belongs to Scheduled Caste and he was not liked by some of the superior officers. Though the said issue cannot be examined in the present writ petition, the fact remains that this is a case of no evidence regarding misappropriation allegedly committed by the petitioner. Though the said issue cannot be examined in the present writ petition, the fact remains that this is a case of no evidence regarding misappropriation allegedly committed by the petitioner. Therefore, the finding that the charge of misappropriation has been proved against the petitioner ought not to have been given by any of the authorities. 20. I am aware of the fact that this Court while exercising the power of judicial review does not act as a Court of Appeal and is not supposed to indulge in re-appreciation of the evidence. But, if the authorities, who had dealt with the enquiry of the petitioner, in clear disregard of evidence before them, record a finding that the charge of misappropriation is proved against the petitioner, certainly this Court can interfere with the said findings in exercise of power of judicial review. In Union of India v. Manab Kumar Guha ( (2011) 11 SCC 535 ) the Supreme Court held that it is well settled that the High Court while exercising the power of judicial review from the order of the disciplinary authority does not act as a court of appeal and appraise evidence and it interferes with the finding of the enquiry officer only when the finding is found to be perverse. 21. In the instant case, for what all stated hereinabove, I am of the considered opinion that the findings recorded by the authorities who dealt with the allegation of misappropriation levelled against the petitioner are perverse, since it was not proved even by the standard of preponderance of probability that the petitioner committed misappropriation of any wages payable to the workers. The findings were recorded by the authorities obviously on imaginary grounds, more particularly, in the face of evidence that the writ petitioner indulged in distributing the wages to the workers which was the duty of the contractor and not that of him. There is absolutely no evidence before the enquiry officer as to what is the amount misappropriated, in what manner and the details thereof. The charge of misappropriation has to be framed specifically and has to be proved by adequate evidence. The evidence that the petitioner distributed the wages on some occasions even if believed cannot be held to be sufficient to prove the charge of misappropriation. Even the charge is so vague and it does not furnish any details of misappropriation. The charge of misappropriation has to be framed specifically and has to be proved by adequate evidence. The evidence that the petitioner distributed the wages on some occasions even if believed cannot be held to be sufficient to prove the charge of misappropriation. Even the charge is so vague and it does not furnish any details of misappropriation. Only on account of suspicion the charge was held proved against the petitioner, therefore, unless this Court interferes with the said finding in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it would result in miscarriage of justice. Therefore, I am of the view that the punishment of removal from service passed against the petitioner is liable to be set aside and is accordingly the same is set aside in the present writ petition. 22. The next question comes up for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for back wages during the period he was kept out of service. 23. Though the department failed prove against the petitioner that he misappropriated the amount of wages payable to the workers, there is some material brought on record showing that the petitioner who was a Mechanical Foreman outstepped his duties and indulged in distributing the wages to the workers. Therefore, there is suspicion about the conduct of the petitioner. 24. In Commr.of Police v. Jai Bhagwan( (2011) 6 SCC 376 ) in similar circumstances the Supreme Court held as under: “Demanding illegal gratification by a police officer that though there is some evidence that an amount of Rs.100/- was returned by the respondent to the complainant but there is no such direct and reliable evidence produced by the appellants in the departmental proceedings which could clearly prove and establish that the respondent demanded and received an illegal gratification of the said denomination. It seems that the proof of taking such illegal gratification has been drawn from the evidence of returning Rs.100/- to the complainant by way of a link-up. In the absence of such a definite/clear proof supporting the case of the appellants, it is difficult to draw a finding of taking illegal gratification by the respondent from the complainant. Therefore, as rightly held by the High Court the present case is a case of no evidence. Albeit, there could be a needle of suspicion pointed towards the respondent. However, suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, as rightly held by the High Court the present case is a case of no evidence. Albeit, there could be a needle of suspicion pointed towards the respondent. However, suspicion cannot take the place of proof. Therefore, the High Court is right in reinstating the appellant without back wages.” 25. In the instant case also, since there is some evidence brought on record against the petitioner that he indulged in distributing the wages to the workmen working under the contractor, in my view, he is not entitled for any back wages. 26. For the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is allowed. The order of removal from service passed by the 3rd respondent/disciplinary authority dated 04.04.2002, as confirmed by the 2nd respondent/Appellate Authority vide orders dated 24.04.2002 is set aside. The writ petition was filed in the year 2002 and the age of the petitioner was shown in the cause title as 48 years. By now, the petitioner attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, the respondents are directed to treat the petitioner as if continued in service till the date of attaining his age of superannuation and accordingly calculate the retiral benefits and pay the same to the petitioner, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled for back wages, however, he shall be entitled to all other attendant benefits and continuity of service. In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed in consequence.