JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by the orders impugned, dismissing him from service, and its affirmance in review, appeal and revision. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of this petition are that petitioner was initially appointed as Rakshak in the Railway Protection Force in 1962, and was subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Rakshak on 1.12.1977. He got posted in Coy No. 2 at out post Kannauj in April, 1982. Petitioner asserts that while posted as such, he recovered 7 bags of cement belonging to Railways from the custody of the respondent No. 6 i.e. Assistant Sub Inspector, Bhopal Singh on 23.4.1982, in which he was charge-sheeted arrested and later bailed out. It is claimed that the respondent No. 6, on such count, maintained enmity with the petitioner. On 6.5.1982, upon receiving information from one Rama Shanker, about certain stolen railway property being kept at petitioner’s quarter, respondent No. 6 is stated to have gone to petitioner’s official quarter at 8.15 p.m. and upon pointing of said Rama Shanker, it is claimed that one wooden plank and two window frames were recovered from his house. Petitioner claims that he was assaulted by respondent No. 6 on the next day and a medical certificate has been annexed to substantiate it. It is also claimed that a complaint was also made by the petitioner in this regard. On the basis of the alleged stolen railway property recovered from the premises of petitioner, a criminal investigation was instituted. In view of the pendency of such criminal investigation, petitioner was placed under suspension on 7.5.1982. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner and a charge-sheet was served upon him on 28.9.1982. The charge-sheet states that on the basis of the information received, respondent No. 6 alongwith his colleague recovered the offending material, i.e. stolen railway property from the possession of petitioner and proceedings under Section 3 of the Railway Protection Act were instituted being case Crime No. 7 of 1982, which was reprehensible for a railway employee. Petitioner initially submitted a letter dated 28.9.1982 demanding certain documents for enabling him to file a reply. It seems that petitioner was permitted to inspect the documents which were available and found relevant. Petitioner initially submitted a letter dated 28.9.1982 demanding certain documents for enabling him to file a reply. It seems that petitioner was permitted to inspect the documents which were available and found relevant. Petitioner, however, again submitted a letter on 11.10.1982 stating that documents relating to criminal proceedings, which is stated to have been initiated against the petitioner has not been supplied to him. This letter was replied by the respondents on 14.10.1982, stating that whatever documents were demanded, had already been permitted to be inspected and the remaining documents have no relevance for the present purposes and, therefore, such request was denied. It seems that petitioner thereafter proceeded to submit his reply to the charge-sheet. In the reply submitted by the petitioner, it was categorically stated that he has been framed by respondent No. 6, as he felt aggrieved on account of petitioner having seized the railway property from him, wherein charge-sheet had been submitted and he had to ultimately seek bail. In para-15 of the reply, petitioner has specifically stated that there was no visible mark upon the recovered property, which may show that the property recovered was a railway property. It was also stated that no documents were brought on record to show even otherwise that in relevant records maintained by the railways, the plank and windows were shown as stolen property of the railways. It was, therefore, stated that the entire accusation against petitioner is false and is a result of a conspiracy hatched against him by the respondent No. 6 which had no basis or substance. The charges, accordingly were emphatically denied. 3. It would also be relevant to notice that the case crime registered against the petitioner under Section 3 of the Railway Protection Act, was investigated and ultimately matter was referred to prosecution cell, for launching prosecution against the petitioner. The file appears to have been examined by the prosecution officer and on the basis of the materials available on record, it was opined that the charge levelled against the petitioner was not made out. Such opinion was based upon the fact that the property recovered had no railway marks nor it had been established that such property could not be shown to be possessed by anybody else. Such opinion was based upon the fact that the property recovered had no railway marks nor it had been established that such property could not be shown to be possessed by anybody else. Doubts were expressed upon the recovery memo as it had not mentioned the time when the concerned officials had left and reached the official quarter of petitioner and who were other persons residing with the petitioner in the same quarter. It may be noticed that after such objection was raised by the prosecution cell, proceedings under Section 3 of the Act were not proceeded further against the petitioner. No document had been brought on record to show that any criminal complaint was filed, although according to the respondents, criminal prosecution was not launched as the value of railway property was less than Rs. 50. 4. Since the petitioner had denied the charges levelled against him as such, the inquiry proceedings commenced. The inquiry officer submitted his report in the matter, which is Annexure 12 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court through the inquiry report in order to contend that though witnesses were produced before the inquiry officer to demonstrate that the offending materials were found at the quarter of the petitioner, but no evidence was adduced to show that the offending property was either a stolen property of the railways or that it carried any distinctive mark to show that it belongs to railways. The enquiry officer, however, proceeded on the assumption that offending goods belonged to the railways and had been stolen and consequently, proceeded to submit report, holding the charges to have been proved against the petitioner. A show-cause notice was thereafter issued on 12.12.1983 as to why he be not removed from service. Petitioner submitted his exhaustive reply to the notice in which it was again reiterated that no material had been brought on record by the employers before the inquiry officer to demonstrate that the wooden plank and the two windows, found in the petitioner’s quarter, either belonged to the railways or that it was a stolen property. It was also stated that the total value of the property was less than Rs. 40/- and as such in terms of the relevant circular, it could not have formed the basis for any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 6. It was also stated that the total value of the property was less than Rs. 40/- and as such in terms of the relevant circular, it could not have formed the basis for any disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. 6. Attention of the Court has also been invited to para-37 of the reply submitted by the petitioner in which it was categorically stated that only on the basis of the oral statement, it was presumed that the offending property belongs to the railways. The disciplinary authority, after having considered the entire matter, found the charges to be proved after rejecting the reply to show-cause notice. The disciplinary authority, consequently, proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service vide order dated 2.3.1983. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal which has also been rejected. The review petition and revision filed has also been rejected. 7. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the railways in which it has been stated that the criminal proceedings were not proceeded further against the petitioner for the reason that the seized goods were valued at less than Rs. 50/- and it was treated to be a petty case, as such, in terms of the Railway board circular, criminal proceedings were not proceeded further. The averments made in the writ petition have been denied by the respondents in the counter-affidavit. 8. Rejoinder-affidavit has been filed by the petitioner reiterating the stand taken in the writ petition. 9. I have heard Sri Rakesh Pandey and Sri Raj Kumar for the petitioner and Sri Satya Prakash Mishra for the respondents and have perused the record. 10. From the materials available on record, it transpires that before initiation of proceedings against the petitioner by the railways on 7th of May, 1982 petitioner had recovered 7 bags of cement from the residence of respondent No. 6, on 23.4.1982 which led to initiation of criminal proceedings against him, resulting in his arrest and filing of a charge-sheet, wherein he was subsequently granted bail. It is in close proximity to this event that respondent No. 6 is stated to have received information from one Rama Shanker Tiwari about existence of some railway property unauthorisedly lying in the premises allotted to the petitioner. Evidence was lead that Rama Shanker Tiwari was also living in the same house, with the petitioner and on account of some differences with petitioner, he asked him to leave. Evidence was lead that Rama Shanker Tiwari was also living in the same house, with the petitioner and on account of some differences with petitioner, he asked him to leave. Rama Shanker Tiwari is stated to have taken respondent No. 6 to the house of petitioner on 6.5.1982 at 8.15 p.m. and from the house of the petitioner one wooden plank and two wooden shuttering windows, allegedly of passenger coach were recovered from the petitioner’s quarter. A recovery memo was also prepared in which petitioner is also stated to have signed. Criminal investigation is stated to have commenced against the petitioner but it is not in dispute that the same was not pressed. According to the respondent, the reason for not pressing the criminal proceedings against the petitioner was that the property itself was valued at less than Rs. 40/- and in terms of the railway Board circular, it was treated to be a petty case for which prosecution was not required to be launched. According to the petitioner, the reason for the criminal prosecution not to have been launched, was the report of the prosecution officer, who found inherent inconsistency in the investigation conducted. The prosecution report, which has been brought on record, clearly supports petitioner’s claim that the property had no railway marks and it could not be said that such property could not be owned by anyone except railways. It was also opined by the prosecution officer that apart from petitioner, one Rama Shanker and another lady Vimla were residing in the same quarter and it was not clear as to who had stolen the property, and if at all it was a stolen property, it needed further investigation. The report of the prosecution has been brought on record of this petition as Annexure-4, which is not denied. In reply, it has been stated in paragraph 16 of the counter-affidavit that a subsequent note was placed by C.W.S. asserting that property belonged to the railways. However, it has not been stated that opinion expressed in the note enclosed as Annexure-6 to the counter-affidavit was ever accepted or prosecution was launched. Moreover, during the course of inquiry, no evidence was produced to demonstrate that property in question belonged to the railways and specific objection taken by petitioner in this regard has also not been dealt with, at any stage. Moreover, during the course of inquiry, no evidence was produced to demonstrate that property in question belonged to the railways and specific objection taken by petitioner in this regard has also not been dealt with, at any stage. It is, however, admitted to both the parties that criminal prosecution was not launched against the petitioner. 11. In the disciplinary proceedings, which were initiated against the petitioner, a specific objection has been raised by the petitioner at all stage of the proceedings that the property was not shown as a stolen property of the railway neither it had any distinct marks upon it to show that the property belongs to the railways but despite it neither any evidence was brought on record to rebut it nor any consideration is reflected on this aspect. 12. Attention of the Court has been invited to Rule-153, which deals with the procedure for imposing major punishment. Rule-153.19 states that a charge is deemed to have been proved if after considering evidence before him inquiry officer believes the ingredients constituting the charge to exist or consider their existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the case to act upon the suggestion that they exist. The precise charge levelled against the petitioner was of being in unauthorised possession of the railway property. Such a charge could be proved only if it was shown that the property belonged to the railways or that it was railway’s stolen property. In case the property was treated to be a stolen property then criminal proceedings were required to have been initiated. Attention of the Court has also been invited to Rule-221.1 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 which reads as Under: “221.1. Every Posts Commander shall enter or cause to be entered, reports of all special occurrences on railways and all crimes against railway property in such records and registers and in such manner as are specified in these rules, or as may be specified by the Directives”. 13. From the materials which have been brought on record, it is apparent that no such record was produced at any stage of the inquiry to show that the offending goods were at any point of time, recorded in the relevant records as a stolen property or as a crime against the railway property. 13. From the materials which have been brought on record, it is apparent that no such record was produced at any stage of the inquiry to show that the offending goods were at any point of time, recorded in the relevant records as a stolen property or as a crime against the railway property. It is further to be observed that the prosecution, at all stage of the proceedings, proceeded upon the assumption that the property recovered from the petitioner’s house belonged to the railways and that it was unauthorisedly kept in his quarter. However, no evidence was brought on record to show that the property, infact, was a railway property. It is not in dispute that no distinctive marks appeared upon the wooden plan or the wooden windows. It was also not shown that none else could own such property. The prosecution for the purposes of refusing to proceed against the petitioner in criminal proceedings has also opined that there were no distinctive marks upon the property to show that it belongs to the railways. In the absence of any evidence brought on record before the inquiry officer and in the disciplinary proceedings, a presumption could not have been drawn that the wooden plank or the wooden windows belonged to the railways. As railway authorities failed to prove the property to be belonging to the railways, no charge against the petitioner could be said to have been made out or proved. The finding of guilt against the petitioner thus is not backed by any evidence, and the same is clearly erroneous. 14. The matter has to be viewed from a different perspective also. It is not in dispute that at the instance of the petitioner, 7 bags of stolen cement had been seized from the house of the respondent No. 6. It is also not in dispute that a charge-sheet was filed and respondent No. 6 was sent to jail and subsequently, he was enlarged on bail. It is within a proximity of less than a month that the complaint was made by the respondent No. 6 against the petitioner. The information about the offending materials lying in the premises of the petitioner is stated to have been given by one Rama Shanker in respect of whom it is alleged that he had been living with petitioner and was asked to leave. The information about the offending materials lying in the premises of the petitioner is stated to have been given by one Rama Shanker in respect of whom it is alleged that he had been living with petitioner and was asked to leave. The inquiry officer has also returned a finding that the enmity of respondent No. 6 and differences with Rama Shanker had been established. In the absence of any material to show that such property belongs to the railway, the proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent No. 6 ought to have been viewed with greater caution. The inquiry officer had relied upon the statement of one of the petitioner’s witnesses who stated that the wooden plank and windows were found at a distance of 4 steps from petitioner’s quarter. There were no independent witness even otherwise to show that this property had been recovered from the petitioner. These aspects have completed been omitted from consideration. It may also be borne in mind that the value of the property, which is stated to have been recovered from the petitioner was less than Rs. 40/-. The allegation of the petitioner that he had been framed at the instance of respondent No. 6, could not have been lightly brushed aside. 15. For the aforesaid reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the allegation against the petitioner of being in unauthrosed possession of railway property was not made out. The disciplinary proceedings also do not inspire confidence inasmuch as petitioner’s plea of providing relevant material relating to criminal proceedings launched against him were not made available to him. This was relevant because the details of movement of respondent No. 6 to the petitioner’s house etc. were all relevant in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and denial of such documents had denied reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. 16. For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the orders of dismissal passed against the petitioner, as affirmed in appeal, review and revision cannot be sustained. Writ Petition succeeds and is allowed. Orders dated 2.3.1983, 6.9.1983, 19.1.1984 and 19.1.1985 are set aside. Petitioner shall be treated to have continued in service and he would be entitled to all service and terminal benefit.