JUDGMENT : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 15.12.2014 by which he has been terminated from service. 2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was appointed as Teacher in the Primary School, Lalurapur, Chandankiyari on 05.07.1988. While posted as In-charge Headmaster at the Upgraded High School Baliapur, Karmatanr, Dhanbad, by an order dated 18.07.2013 he was placed under suspension. A charge-memo dated 30.08.2013 in Prapatra-‘Ka’ was served upon him on the allegation of showing more number of students and the corresponding entry on consumption of rice in the register which would indicate that he had kept 5 quintals rice for black-marketing. In the enquiry, the petitioner has submitted his response taking a stand that 4.50 quintals rice belonged to Upgraded Primary School, Dhangatanr. One Anant Kumar Bhandari of Upgraded Primary School, Dhangatanr was examined during the enquiry in which he has admitted that 4.50 quintals rice of his school was deposited with the petitioner. Holding that the petitioner has not satisfactorily explained retention of 5 quintals rice he was dismissed from service. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3. In the counter-affidavit, the stand reflected in the impugned order has been taken by the respondent-State. 4. Mr. Arpan Mishra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the finding recorded by the enquiring officer that the charges framed against the petitioner stand proved is patently illegal and since the impugned order of termination dated 15.12.2014 is founded solely on the said report, the order of termination warrants interference by this Court. As against the above, Miss. Ruchi Rampuria, the learned State counsel submits that on admitted facts the petitioner has failed to explain retention of one quintal rice in excess of what has been recorded in the register and while so, misconduct on his part stands proved. It is contended that the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in terms of the extant rules and the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself and, therefore, the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding need not be interfered by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. It is contended that the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in terms of the extant rules and the petitioner was afforded sufficient opportunity to defend himself and, therefore, the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding need not be interfered by this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Powers of the writ Court to issue certiorari has been explained by the Supreme Court in “Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan” reported in AIR 1964 SC 477 , wherein it has been held that if an order of punishment has been passed in breach of the extant rules or in breach of the principles of natural justice, a writ of certiorari would lie. Normally, the writ Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the departmental authorities, however, when it is found that the findings recorded during the departmental enquiry are contrary to the materials produced during the enquiry it becomes a perverse finding and therefore the writ Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would interfere with the penalty order passed on the basis of such enquiry report. 6. Specific charge framed against the petitioner is that during inspection on 15.07.2013, five quintals rice kept in 10 gunny-bags was found which was in excess of 73.3 Kg rice (55.85 Kg + 17.35 Kg) if attendance of the students as recorded in the register is accepted. It is alleged that in the register maintained in the school the petitioner has shown more number of students and, thus, more consumption of rice, which was not a fact as 5 quintals rice was found in the school. On the number of students, no material was produced by the respondents to establish that in the register number of students more than the number of students actually present in the school was registered. The para-teacher namely, Anant Kumar Bhandari was examined who has deposed during the enquiry that 4.5 quintals rice of his school was kept in the petitioner's school. He has further deposed that out of 4.5 quintals rice he had lifted 3.5 quintals. On the basis of his statement, it was inferred that only one quintal excess rice was left in the petitioner's school whereas during inspection on 15.07.2013 five quintals rice was found. 7. He has further deposed that out of 4.5 quintals rice he had lifted 3.5 quintals. On the basis of his statement, it was inferred that only one quintal excess rice was left in the petitioner's school whereas during inspection on 15.07.2013 five quintals rice was found. 7. Neither in the enquiry report nor in the present proceeding the respondents have disclosed the date on which the said Anant Kumar Bhandari was examined during the enquiry and made the aforesaid statement. His statement during the departmental enquiry does not indicate that 3.5 quintals rice was lifted prior to 15.07.2013, when the inspection took place. On this issue, the departmental authorities have not conducted any enquiry. Simply stating that the petitioner has failed to explain 5 quintals rice on the date of enquiry whereas, only one quintal rice belonging to the Dhangatanr School was left in his school, the enquiry officer has found the charges framed against the petitioner proved. Evidently, it was mere ipsi dixit of the enquiry officer who has recorded the aforesaid finding merely on an assumption that 3.5 quintals rice was lifted by Mr. Bhandari before the inspection was conducted on 15.07.2013. No doubt, the test which is applied during a departmental proceeding is preponderance of probability, but by no stretch of imagination this test can be reduced to a mere possibility. The impugned order dated 15.12.2014 is primarily founded on the enquiry report dated 24.01.2014 and, thus, evidently the authorities have adopted a procedure to arrive at a conclusion on guilt of the petitioner which cannot be countenanced in law. 8. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 15.12.2014 is quashed. 9. The writ petition is allowed.