JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner has filed this Misc. Petition being aggrieved by order dated 30th August, 2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench Circuit Sitting, Gwalior, in O. A. No. 202/00226/2017; whereby, petitioner's original application filed by him being aggrieved by imposition of penalty of reduction of two stages for two years, after holding full-fledged departmental enquiry on the charges of his allowing outside person for making entry in the ledger cards and also for misuse of post office seal, has been dismissed. 2. Brief facts, which are not disputed, are that, applicant/petitioner was posted at Sub-Post Office, Dabra, on the post of Treasurer vide order dated 26.7.2004. A charge-sheet was served upon him under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 on 17.5.2000. Two charges were levelled against the petitioner, namely, while discharging his duties on the post of Treasurer and Postal Assistant certain accounts were opened but ledger cards of these accounts were not prepared by him and the work of preparation of ledger cards was done by some unauthorized person which was violative of rule 27 of the Post Office Saving Bank Rules Book Vol. I read with rule 145 and 158 ibid, and therefore, the act of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of rule 3(1)(i) to 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 3. Another charge levelled against him was that during the period from 12.6.2004 to 10.1.2008 he had prepared counterfeit pass books to the tune of Rs.10,46,270/- and had delivered the same to the depositors. Out of these pass books, two pass books containing numbers 2027479 and 88718 bear the date and seal of Sub-Post Office, Dabra. The charge was that he failed to keep the date and seal in safe custody and allowed unauthorized person to enter inside the premises of the post office freely. Thus, he violated rule 20-21of Chapter VI of the Post Office Rules Book Vol. I and also acted in a manner which is contrary to the provisions of rule 3(1)(i) to 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 4. On denial of charges, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted wherein charge No. 1 was found to be proved. Thus, he violated rule 20-21of Chapter VI of the Post Office Rules Book Vol. I and also acted in a manner which is contrary to the provisions of rule 3(1)(i) to 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. 4. On denial of charges, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted wherein charge No. 1 was found to be proved. In respect of charge No. 2, the enquiry officer, however, found that forged pass books in the form used by the post office were not issued from the stock register of Dabra post office. He further held that the case was based on photocopies which were not very clear and impressions of seal and stamps could not be compared from the photocopies, and therefore, held that imputation of Article II of the charge was not established. 5. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer who recorded a dissent note and served it along with copy of the enquiry report to the applicant vide memo dated 7.11.2013. Applicant submitted his reply on 30.11.2013. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority, vide order dated 3.4.2014 passed the punishment order of recovery of Rs. 5,23,135/- recoverable in 105 installments at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month and the last installment of Rs. 3,135/-, with reduction of two stages for two years and during such period of reduction, it was directed that petitioner will not earn increment of pay and after expiry of such period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increment of pay. 6. Petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, filed a revision to respondent No. 2 who, vide order dated 10.1.2017 modified the penalty order dated 3.4.2014 and waived the penalty of recovery. The revisional authority only imposed upon the applicant penalty of reduction of two stages for two years with further stipulation that he will not earn increment of pay and after expiry of such period, the reduction will not have the effect of postponing the future increment of pay. Being unsuccessful in its challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this petition. 7. Being unsuccessful in its challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as charge No. 2 causing financial loss to the public exchequer is concerned, it was not proved by the enquiry officer, and even the revisional authority has set aside the punishment to the extent it was concerned with recovery of loss allegedly caused to the public exchequer recording a finding that no financial loss was caused to the department. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is apparent from the enquiry report that the findings in regard to charge No. 1 is contrary to the discussion made by the enquiry officer. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has read over assessment by enquiry officer on Article of Charges and his assessment in regard to Article I is as under: "It is a fact that the CO was working as PA, Dabra during the period mentioned in the charge sheet. In the Article-I of Annexure-I of charge sheet it has been alleged that the CO, while working as PA, Dabra, had not prepared the ledger cards of the accounts opened as detailed in the charge sheet. To prove this charge, the disciplinary authority produced the photocopies of ledger cards marked as Ex. P-1 to Ex. P-10 and Ex. P-30 to Ex. P-36. Shri D.C.Gupta, Shri B. L. Shrivastava and Shri M. L. Pathak were produced as prosecution witness. On the other hand, the CO produced additional documents as D-1 to D-7. The C.O. has also produced 5 defence witnesses namely Shri J. S. Bhadoriya, Shri K. C. Rajak, Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta, Shri Mohan Sharma and Shri Nanhe Singh. Since the CO in his examination dated 19.7.2013 by IO has himself admitted that due to heavy work load in S. B. Branch of Dabra post office, the excess work was completed with the help of some other officials including GDS and retired official. Shri J. S. Bhadoriya who was working as SPM, has admitted in his examination on 19.6.2013 that he always order to other staff and GDS to complete the excess work of S. B. Branch. In the brief submitted by C. O. he has also accepted that as per orders of SPM Dabra, the excess work of S. B. Branch of Dabra was completed with the help of others. In the brief submitted by C. O. he has also accepted that as per orders of SPM Dabra, the excess work of S. B. Branch of Dabra was completed with the help of others. There is no doubt that the work of preparation of ledger cards as mentioned in the charge sheet has not been done by the C.O. The P. O. has also raised the same point in his brief and held the charge as proved. The C.O. has enclosed copy of Establishment review of Dabra LSG S. O. for the year of 2005-06 and 2011-12 along with his written brief. Although no such documents can be accepted at this stage but mere perusal of these documents show that there were 986.94 minutes and 1910.25 minutes workload respectively against the staff of 450 minutes. As regards to entry of unauthorized person into the post office and allowing them to prepare the records of post office, the prosecution witness Shri B. L. Shrivastava and Shri M. L. Pathak do not support the charge. In the chief examination on 17.7.2012 both the above witnesses deposed that they are not agreeing with the contents of Ex. P-26 and Ex. P-27. They further added that their statements were recorded under pressure. The P. O. has mentioned in his brief that this is afterthought and nothing. The prosecution side has not produced any concrete records to prove that unauthorized persons were working in the post office. However, prosecution witness Shri D. C. Gupta has deposed that if the statements of both the above officials were recorded under pressure, they had to report to higher authorities. The C. O. in his brief has mentioned incorrectly that the duty of preparation of ledger cards was not for counter clerk. The C. O. was working in S. O. and as per rule 27, 145 and 158 of P.O. S.B. Vol.-I the duty of preparation of ledger cards relate to Counter Assistant himself.” However, erroneously, contrary to the appreciation of material and evidence on record, enquiry officer has said that Article No. 1 of charge stood proved. The C. O. was working in S. O. and as per rule 27, 145 and 158 of P.O. S.B. Vol.-I the duty of preparation of ledger cards relate to Counter Assistant himself.” However, erroneously, contrary to the appreciation of material and evidence on record, enquiry officer has said that Article No. 1 of charge stood proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court to rule 27 of Opening of Accounts Procedure in Departmental Sub Offices, to point out that it is the responsibility of the counter assistant to deal with the application form for opening a saving account and pay-in-slip as it was required to be examined by the S. B. Counter Assistant in the manner prescribed in rule 23. Petitioner never worked as S. B. Counter Assistant and there is no material on record to show that petitioner who was an in-charge Treasurer and working as Postal Assistant, Dabra, was ever assigned duties of a Counter Assistant, and therefore, for the dereliction of duties of somebody else, he could not have been punished. 9. It has also come on record that statements given by two of the prosecution witnesses, namely Shri M. L. Pathak and Shri B. L. Shrivastava in the preliminary enquiry were at behest of their superior officer, namely Shri D. C. Gupta, the then enquiry officer and during regular inquiry, both these witnesses, who are group ‘D’ employees, have admitted that such statements were written in their handwriting on the dictation of Shri D. C. Gupta, an officer who had conducted preliminary enquiry and they are not in agreement with such statements. They also deposed that they had given such statements under pressure of the enquiry officer. Shri D. C. Gupta in his examina-tion before the enquiry officer has though stated that if such statements were obtained under duress, then such group D employees were free to have lodged a complaint with the superior authorities, but it is easier said than done. Position of a group D employee is very vulnerable. He or they have their family to support and are not in a position to withstand pressure of superior authorities. Position of a group D employee is very vulnerable. He or they have their family to support and are not in a position to withstand pressure of superior authorities. These statements of group D employees have been supported by Shri Mohan Sharma (DW-1), Gramin Dak Sevak, who has categorically deposed that he was reporting for duty at Dabra at 9 am and used to work upto 5-5.30 pm He used to help in the work of saving bank after 2.30 pm. In reply to question No. 3, he has categorically mentioned that none of the agents was performing work of the post office and he further deposed that he was knowing Vipin Bihari Gupta in regard to which charge has been made and he used to take his work from the counter and used to leave the place. He has also admitted that was though working as Gramin Dak Sevak but was performing duties of saving bank as per the instruc-tions of the Post Master. Similarly, Nanhe Singh (DW-2), another defence witness, has not elucidated any contradiction so to support prosecution case. Moreover, as has been discussed above, there is contradiction in the analysis and the findings of the enquiry officer. In analysis of Article I charge, enquiry officer has admitted that the documents which were produced for his perusal reveal that there was 986.94 minutes and 1910.25 minutes workload respectively against the staff of 450 minutes. It has also recorded a finding that entry of unauthorized person in the post office and allowing them to prepare the records of post office has not been supported by prosecution witnesses Shri B. L. Shrivastava and Shri M. L. Pathak. It has also noted that prosecution side has not produced any concrete records to prove that unauthorized persons were working in the post office. Therefore, merely on the evidence of solitary witness Shri D. C. Gupta who had conducted preliminary enquiry, state-ments given by other prosecution witnesses could not have been brushed aside. In fact, Shri D. C. Gupta had a vested interest in success of departmental enquiry as he had conducted preliminary enquiry, and therefore, he was not an independent witness, but a witness having vested interest. In the discussion, enquiry officer has also noted that charged officer was working as Postal Assistant, however, the work of preparation of ledger cards relates to Counter Assistant. In the discussion, enquiry officer has also noted that charged officer was working as Postal Assistant, however, the work of preparation of ledger cards relates to Counter Assistant. However, erroneously, it has been concluded that Article I of charge stands proved. This finding is contrary to the material on record. 10. Dealing with sufficiency of evidence, Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sher Bahadur v. Union of India and others as reported in (2002) 7 SCC 142 has held that requisite evidence must link the charged officer with the alleged misconduct, otherwise it would be no evidence in law. Merely stating in the enquiry report that “in view of oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence as adduced in the enquiry”, not sufficient to uphold the finding of the enquiry officer with the charge proved. It was held that such finding cannot be sustained. 11. As far as scope of judicial review is concerned, in the case of Union of India v. K.A. Kittu and others as reported in (2001) 1 SCC 65 , it has been held that Court while exercising powers of judicial review may examine/consider contra-dictory findings of the enquiry officer, findings based on no evidence, and also instances where there are no clear findings. It has been further held that CAT rightly allowed the application of the respondent and rightly set aside the report of enquiry officer holding respondent guilty of charges. It has been further held that enquiry officer is duty bound to consider the evidence of all witnesses examined by the accused, and under such facts and circumstances in the present case, when the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on material on record and the evidence which has been adduced by the rival parties, Article I charge cannot be sustained, and therefore, consequential order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority and the one passed in revision being not based on the material on record deserve to be set aside and are set aside. Petition is allowed accordingly. Parties to bear their cost.