JUDGMENT 1. Aggrieved over the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 27.09.2010, in W.P.(MD)No.10009 of 2008, the present Writ Appeal came to be filed. 2. The facts in brief, which led to the filing of the present Writ Appeal, are as follows: The appellant, while working as Sub-Inspector of Police, has faced with the disciplinary proceedings for the following two charges: "Highly reprehensible and grave misconduct in having demanded and accepted Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification from Thiru.S.Edwin Victor to release on bail Thiru.S.Justin Jose the accused in Thuckalay Police Station Cr.No.1061/2004 u/s. 75 MCP Act on 17.10.2004 at 10.00 hrs at Thuckalay P.S. and Highly reprehensible and grave misconduct in having demanded Rs. 10,000/- on 26.10.04 at 09.30 hrs at Thuckalay P.S. and then reduced his demand to Rs. 7,000/- from Thiru.S.Justin Jose for the release of the vehicle TN 72 W 8493 Hero Honda Motor Cycle which was detained at Thuckalay P.S. from 16.10.2004 and accepted Rs. 7,000/- on 26.10.2004 at 11.30 hrs at Thckalay P.S. as illegal gratification from Thiru.S.Justin Jose." 3. Similarly, one Manoharan, the Head Constable working with the appellant, was also proceeded with departmentally for similar charge, i.e., registering a false case. However, based on similar set of evidence, the colleague of the appellant, viz., one Manoharan was let off in the departmental proceedings. However, the appellant was inflicted with the punishment of dismissal from service by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority has also concurred with the findings given by the disciplinary authority and dismissed the appeal, as against which, the Writ Petition was filed, which was also dismissed. Hence, the present Writ Appeal. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that P.W.1-Justin Jose was involved in an offence under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act and he was brought to the Police Station. Thereafter, P.W.3-Advocate of P.W.1, has given a false complaint against the appellant, who is an Honest Officer. The allegation of corruption has been pressed into service only at the instance of P.W.3-Advocate of P.W.1. The main allegation that a false case has been foisted against P.W.1 by the delinquent and thereafter, he demanded amount for his release itself is found to be false. If really a false case has been filed against P.W.1 by the appellant, P.W.3, being a lawyer of P.W.1, would have certainly contested the above case. The main allegation that a false case has been foisted against P.W.1 by the delinquent and thereafter, he demanded amount for his release itself is found to be false. If really a false case has been filed against P.W.1 by the appellant, P.W.3, being a lawyer of P.W.1, would have certainly contested the above case. But, on the other hand, he himself admitted the offence on behalf of P.W.1 and paid the fine amount in a Court. This fact creates serious doubt about the very allegation. 5. The allegation of demand and acceptance of bribe is also highly doubtful. If there was a demand, P.W.3, being a lawyer of P.W.1, would have given a complaint to the Department of Vigilance and Anti-Corruption and arranged for a trap, which has not been done so. On the other hand, only on the basis of interested witnesses, the departmental proceedings have been proceeded. It is the further allegation of the department that one Kannan [P.W.11], who had allegedly brought the motorcycle to the police station, has given a contra statement in another departmental proceedings in P.R.No.19 of 2007, wherein, he has categorically admitted that he has deposed only at the instance of P.W.3 to implicate the delinquent. The disciplinary authority has totally ignored the above evidence and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, without any valid reason. All the facts create serious doubt about the evidence of so called eye witnesses. The evidence of private witnesses is highly interested and motivated one. The disciplinary authority has not analysed the entire evidence in proper perspective and simply passed the dismissal order without application of mind. 6. It is the further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the appellate authority has also not assigned any reason and simply accepting the findings, confirmed the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, which is also against the rules. The learned Single Judge also has not considered the facts in proper perspective. Much reliance is also placed by the learned Senior Counsel in the judgment reported in [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 ] and he prayed for setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the disciplinary authority has clearly considered the entire evidence and found that the charges were proved against the delinquent. 7. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that the disciplinary authority has clearly considered the entire evidence and found that the charges were proved against the delinquent. The appellate authority also concurred with the findings of the disciplinary authority. Hence, it is submitted that this Court cannot re- appreciate the evidence and thus, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. We have perused the entire records carefully. 9. Of course, in a departmental proceedings, what is required is only preponderance of probabilities to prove the charges and strict rule of evidence is not applicable. But, at the same time, the evidence adduced on the side of the department should have least quality even to infer the probabilities. Merely because strict rule of evidence is not applicable in the departmental proceedings, it cannot be said that the evidence, which is in perfunctory nature of evidence, can be relied and guilt can be presumed even without any legal evidence. The legal evidence is something which has probative value and admissible in evidence. Similarly, reliability of evidence has also to be taken into consideration. 10. It is the main case of the delinquent in this case that he was trapped in the departmental proceedings by the advocate who appeared for one of the accused. When the serious allegation of corruption is made by the party, who has also suffered at the hands of the delinquent by filing an FIR against him, such allegations made by the affected person have to be seen very seriously, since always there is an element of bias and motive attached with such allegations. Therefore, the evidence adduced on the department side, when carefully seen, particularly, the delinquent officer has taken action as per law and filed an FIR against one of the witnesses, such witness statements require corroboration. Thus, it cannot be said that only preponderance of probabilities alone is sufficient in those cases. 11. The charge levelled against the delinquent in this case was that the delinquent, while serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, arrested P.W.1 and foisted a false case under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act and demanded Rs. 1,000/- for his immediate release. Thereafter, he also demanded Rs. 7,000/- for release of his motorcycle. 12. 11. The charge levelled against the delinquent in this case was that the delinquent, while serving as Sub-Inspector of Police, arrested P.W.1 and foisted a false case under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act and demanded Rs. 1,000/- for his immediate release. Thereafter, he also demanded Rs. 7,000/- for release of his motorcycle. 12. It is to be noted that if really P.W.1 was falsely implicated and he was no way connected with the crime, in which, he had been charged, in normal conduct, P.W.1 had to contest the case, but, whereas, in the case on hand, P.W.1 admitted the offence before the Court of law and paid the fine amount. The above conduct of P.W.1 is, in fact, against the normal human conduct. If a false case has been foisted against him, there was no need for him to admit the offence before the Court of law. 13. P.Ws.9, 10,12,13 and 14 to 22 examined on the side of the department have not implicated the delinquent. In fact, their evidence indicates that the delinquent has discharged his duty legally. It is also curious to note that the specific allegation of the department was that from the shop of P.W.1, his two wheeler was brought to the police station, at the instructions of the delinquent by one Kannan [P.W.11]. 14. The said Kannan was examined in another departmental proceedings, wherein, he has admitted that only at the instance of P.W.3, the advocate, he made such statement against the delinquent. This fact was not seriously considered by the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment. When the evidence of the witnesses prima facie indicates that they are highly interested, to derive some benefits, by taking action against the police officer, who in fact, filed an FIR against the witness and the contradictory evidence one in favour of the Head Constable and another is against the Sub- inspector of Police makes very clear that the evidence adduced by those witnesses is unbelievable and highly interested. Only the evidence of family members, viz., P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and P.W.3, the advocate of P.W.1, were given much importance. Admittedly, P.W.1 was charged for specific offence by the delinquent officer. Whereas, all other witnesses have not supported the version of P.W.1. This fact has not been considered by the disciplinary authority. Only the evidence of family members, viz., P.Ws.1, 2 and 4 and P.W.3, the advocate of P.W.1, were given much importance. Admittedly, P.W.1 was charged for specific offence by the delinquent officer. Whereas, all other witnesses have not supported the version of P.W.1. This fact has not been considered by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has also considered the mere statements given by the witnesses to the Inspector of Police, Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department and arrived at the conclusion. What are the nature of statements and who are all the persons who gave such statements before the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Department, were not mentioned in the enquiry report. The statements given by some witnesses before the Vigilance and Anti- Corruption Department cannot be construed as evidence at all. Therefore, relying upon those statements by the Enquiry Officer to prove the charges, in our considered view, is against the law. In fact, when the evidence of the interested witnesses excluded particularly, in view of the serious doubt and contradictions, as discussed above, there is no legal evidence available on record to prove the charges. 15. It is also curious to note that one Manoharan, Head Constable, was also proceeded with for the following charge: "Highly reprehensible conduct in having registered a false case against Tr.Justin Jose in Thuckalay P.S. Cr.No.1061/2004, u/s 75 MCP Act on 17.10.2004 at 09.15 hrs. as per the instructions of Thiru.K.N.Ramesh Babu, Sub-Inspector of Police even though knowing that Tr.Justin Jose had not committed any offence u/s 75 MCP Act." 16. Similarly, evidences were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and finally, the Enquiry Officer held as follows: "Among the 25 prosecution documents, no document prove that the case in Thuckalay P.S., Cr.No.1061/2004, u/s 75 MCP Act is a false one. Therefore, the alleged delinquency of registration of a false case by delinquent on the directions of Sub Inspector of Police Tr.Ramesh Babu bears no water. As such, I hold that the charge against the delinquent is not proved." 17. It is curious to note that there is a definite finding of the Enquiry Officer that there is no evidence available on record to show that the case registered in Crime No.1061 of 2004 under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act is a false one. It is curious to note that there is a definite finding of the Enquiry Officer that there is no evidence available on record to show that the case registered in Crime No.1061 of 2004 under Section 75 of the Madras City Police Act is a false one. Having taken a specific stand, when the same charge has been framed against the delinquent, the same Enquiry Officer found that the above charge is proved, which itself clearly indicates that the order of the Enquiry Officer suffers from element of bias towards the delinquent. 18. In fact, one of the witnesses, namely P.W.7, who was examined to prove the alleged bribe amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in his cross-examination, has categorically stated that he did not see the payment of Rs. 1000/-. Further, he has also admitted that he did not go to the police station at the relevant point of time. His entire evidence also clearly indicated that only on finding illegal arrack seller travelling in the bike as a pillion rider, Sub- Inspector of Police seized the bike and took the bike to the police station. This aspect has not even been considered by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The appellate authority has also not considered anything on merits and simply accepted the findings of the Enquiry Officer. 19. Be that as it may, the departmental evidence clearly indicates that the witnesses are having serious motive and the delinquent has filed an FIR for allegedly carrying illegal arrack seller in the bike of P.W.1 and, thereafter, the complaint has been lodged by P.W.1 for illegal demand of Rs. 1,000/- for his release and also Rs. 7,000/- for release of motorbike. 20. As already discussed above, if really the entire case itself is a false one, there was no necessity for P.W.1 to admit the offence and pay the fine, that too, with the help of P.W.3, who was his lawyer. All these facts, in fact, create serious doubt over the entire prosecution. In the departmental proceedings, a charge of bribe has been made by the persons who have some axe to grind. Such charges are required proper proof. 21. At this juncture, it is useful to extract the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 ], which reads as under: "21. Such charges are required proper proof. 21. At this juncture, it is useful to extract the relevant paragraph of the judgment of the Apex Court reported in [Union of India v. Gyan Chand Chattar, (2009) 12 SCC 78 ], which reads as under: "21. Such a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned. He would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in such cases. Therefore, such a grave charge of quasi-criminal nature was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere probabilities." 22. Applying the above ratio to the case on hand, we are of the view that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have not properly appreciated the evidence. The evidence adduced on the side of the department is full of infirmities and doubtful and creates serious doubt, particularly, charges as well as nature of offence and the background of motive cannot be inferred on the basis of mere preponderance of probabilities. The learned Single Judge has also not considered these aspects. Hence, the findings of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are liable to be interfered with. 23. In fine, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 27.09.2010, made in W.P.(MD)No.10009 of 2008, is hereby set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. 24. At this juncture, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly conceded that the appellant is willing to forego the backwages, if he is reinstated in service. 25. Considering the above said submission, the respondents are directed to reinstate the appellant in service with continuity of service, however, without any backwages.