JUDGMENT : SUDHIR AGARWAL, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by Sri Mustaq Ahmad Khan, who worked as "Civilian Clerk" in Ordinance Factory at Kanpur Nagar. He was imposed with punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" vide order dated 02.04.1991 where against appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 14.08.1992. His Original Application (hereinafter referred to as "O.A.") No. 1579 of 1992 filed under Section 19 of Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1985") has also been dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") vide judgment and order dated 10.11.2000. 2. The aforesaid judgment, orders of punishment and appeal are under challenge. Petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order of Tribunal and to direct respondents to reinstate petitioner after quashing the order of punishment. 3. Facts in brief, as stated in writ petition, are, that a memorandum was issued to petitioner on 12.09.1981 by Officer Incharge, AOC (Records), Trimulgherry, Secunderabad alleging that petitioner was convicted on a criminal charge under Customs Act, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1962"), as a result whereof his "conduct led to conviction" renders him undesirable to be retained in public service and he should be removed. Petitioner was given an opportunity to submit his representation against proposed penalty. Petitioner submitted reply dated 06.10.1981 stating that he has not been convicted on a criminal charge under Act, 1962 and if any such judgment of conviction has been passed by a Court, supply a copy thereof. He further stated that under Section 112 of Act, 1962 a penalty was imposed by Additional Collector of Customs, Muzaffarpur upon petitioner where against he preferred appeal which is pending. Further he said that the said penalty does not come within the purview of "conviction" of a criminal offence. 4. Thereafter another memorandum dated 20.12.1983 was issued cancelling office memorandum dated 12.09.1981. It is stated therein that Respondent-2, i.e., Disciplinary Authority proposes to hold an inquiry as per procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1965"). 4. Thereafter another memorandum dated 20.12.1983 was issued cancelling office memorandum dated 12.09.1981. It is stated therein that Respondent-2, i.e., Disciplinary Authority proposes to hold an inquiry as per procedure prescribed under Rule 14 of Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1965"). The said memorandum appended with Statement of Article of Charge read as under: "That the said Shri M.A. Khan while functioning as a civilian clerk in COD Kanpur during the year 1978 was arrested on 22 Mar 78 by the Custom Authority under section 104 of Customs Act 1962 as he was found carrying contraband goods from Nepal with his other associates. Later on the said customs case against Shri MA Khan had been adjudicated and a personal penalty of Rs. 10000/- was imposed on him under customs act 1962. The penalty was subsequently reduced to Rs. 5000/- by the Member of Central Board of Excise and Customs New Delhi and subject to this modification the order in original was upheld and confirmed on an appeal by the individual. Shri MA Khan thus committed an act of Gross Misconduct which led to imposition of the said penalty." 5. Evidence in support of charge stated in Annexures-3 and 4 to memorandum dated 20.12.1983 did not mention name of any witness and only documentary evidence proposed was, as under: "(a) Station Headquarters, Kunraghat, Gorakhpur letter No. 626/1/A dated 30 May 78; (b) Customs Preventive Division, Gorakhpur letter No. VIII (26)2-INT (78) Pt-1/708 dated 14 Jun 78; (c) Office of the Deputy Collector of Customs (Preventive) Indo Nepal Boarder Gorakhpur letter No. VIII(26)-2-INT/ 78/ Pt-1/870 dated 22 Jul 81; (d) Adjudication order No. 2-Cus/81 dated 31 Jan 81 passed by the Addl. Collector of Customs Indo Nepal Boarder, Muzaffarpur; and (e) Office of the Deputy Collector of Customs (Preventive) Indo Nepal Boarder Gorakhpur letter No. VIII(26)2-INT/ 78/Pt-I 1191 dated 23 Oct 82." 6. Petitioner submitted a letter dated 27.01.1984 stating that copies of letters referred to in Annexure-3 of memorandum dated 20.12.1983, i.e., documents relied be supplied to him and also that since his appeal is pending against adjudication order of Additional Collector, till appeal is decided, disciplinary proceedings be deferred. However, inquiry proceeded. 7. Petitioner submitted a letter dated 27.01.1984 stating that copies of letters referred to in Annexure-3 of memorandum dated 20.12.1983, i.e., documents relied be supplied to him and also that since his appeal is pending against adjudication order of Additional Collector, till appeal is decided, disciplinary proceedings be deferred. However, inquiry proceeded. 7. It is complained by petitioner that no documents were supplied to him; no oral evidence was recorded before Inquiry Officer, no documents were proved, but Inquiry Officer concluded inquiry and submitted report dated 12.12.1985 holding that charge levelled against petitioner was not proved. Operative part of inquiry report dated 12.12.1985 reads as under: "Hence the inevitable conclusion is that the charge has not been proved against the delinquent officials as there is nothing on record to sustain the charge." (emphasis added) 8. Disciplinary Authority did not agree with inquiry report and vide order dated 12.02.1986 remitted matter again to Inquiry Officer to hold further inquiry keeping into consideration observations made in para 1 of order dated 12.02.1986, which read as under: "(a) case has been concluded only for the reasons that documents supplied by the delinquent official were not attested by any officer as a certified true copies. In this connection, refer to para 14(b), 16, 19 and 21 of Don'ts of Do's and Don'ts pamphlet. (b) the Inquiry Officer, permitted the Assisting Officer to record the false allegation against disciplinary authority in contravention to oral inquiry proceedings. (c) the Inquiry Officer permitted Assisting Officer to submit extraneous matters other than the charge framed against the accused Govt. Servant. (d) the Inquiry Officer failed to give definite findings on the Article of Charges but, discussed various extraneous matters other than the charges. (e) the Inquiry Officer, concluded the enquiry proceedings under perfunctory manner and failed to ask both the sides to argue their case or to file written briefs." 9. Inquiry Officer after allegedly complying with aforesaid directions, submitted another report dated 12.10.1989 and held that there was no adequate evidence to prove charge against petitioner, therefore, petitioner deserve to be exonerated. 10. Copy of inquiry proceedings were furnished to petitioner vide letter dated 19.02.1990 by Disciplinary Authority permitting him to make representation, if any. Disciplinary Authority also said that it will take a suitable decision after considering report. 11. 10. Copy of inquiry proceedings were furnished to petitioner vide letter dated 19.02.1990 by Disciplinary Authority permitting him to make representation, if any. Disciplinary Authority also said that it will take a suitable decision after considering report. 11. Petitioner submitted representation dated 27.02.1990 requesting Disciplinary Authority to exonerate him since Inquiry Officer has not found charge proved against petitioner. 12. Disciplinary Authority thereafter sent a memorandum dated 10.11.1990 stating that he disagrees with findings of Inquiry Officer and holds petitioner guilty of charge and reasons given in memorandum dated 10.11.1990 contained in para 4 are as under: "(a) The said Shri MA Khan was involved in smuggling activities and was arrested by Customs (Prevention) Division of Gorakhpur on 22 Mar 78 under Section 104 of Customs Act 1962, as he was found carrying contraband goods. (b) Shri MA Khan was imposed personal penalty of Rs. 10000/- under Customs Act 1962 and was directed to deposit the amount into any State Bank of India vide Govt. of India, Office of the Addl Collector of Customs, INDO NEPAL BOARDER, Muzaffarpur Adjudication order No. 2-Cus/81 dated 31 an 81. On consideration of an appeal of the individual against this adjudication order, the penalty was subsequently reduced to Rs. 5000/- vide Govt. of India, Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi order No. 586-589 dated 29 Nov 81. It was further, stated therein that subject to this modification, the adjudication order dated 31 Jan 81 was upheld and confirmed. (c) The inquiry officer has erred in relying on the statements of the witnesses, unconcerned with the department while recording his findings instead of taking into account the aforesaid orders of the Customs Department especially so when no prosecution witnesses are listed in the charge sheet." 13. Disciplinary Authority also proposed punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" and petitioner was given an opportunity to make representation against said disagreement. 14. Reply was given by petitioner vide letter dated 08.12.1990. Thereafter vide order dated 02.04.1991 punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" was awarded by Officer Incharge, Army Ordinance Corps Record Office, Post Box No. 3, Trimulgherry Post, Secunderabad upon petitioner. 15. Petitioner preferred an appeal before Director General, Ordnance Services, Master General of Ordnance Branch, Army Headquarters, DHQ, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "DGOS") vide memo of appeal dated 25.05.1991. Thereafter vide order dated 02.04.1991 punishment of "Compulsory Retirement" was awarded by Officer Incharge, Army Ordinance Corps Record Office, Post Box No. 3, Trimulgherry Post, Secunderabad upon petitioner. 15. Petitioner preferred an appeal before Director General, Ordnance Services, Master General of Ordnance Branch, Army Headquarters, DHQ, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "DGOS") vide memo of appeal dated 25.05.1991. When appeal was pending, petitioner received a memorandum dated 30.10.1991 proposing to forfeit pay and allowances, paid over and above subsistence allowance to petitioner during the period he was under suspension, but to treat period of suspension as qualifying service for other benefits. Petitioner submitted representation dated 06.12.1991. 16. Appeal was not decided, hence petitioner preferred O.A. No. 1579 of 1992 before Tribunal challenging order of punishment, i.e., "Compulsory Retirement". However, Tribunal has dismissed O.A., hence this writ petition. 17. Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that: (i) Original documents were not produced before Inquiry Officer and petitioner had no occasion to inspect and verify the relied on documents supplied to him which were seriously challenged by petitioner. (ii) Petitioner examined two witnesses, Sarfuddin and Hamid Ahmad in his defence who supported petitioner's defence but they have been disbelieved only on the ground that there was an order of Central Board of Excise and Custom. (iii) Penalty imposed by Adjudicating Officer of Custom Department is not a "Conviction" under Act, 1962 and, therefore, there was no occasion for respondents to treat as if petitioner's conduct has led to conviction of a criminal offence. Entire departmental inquiry was conducted illegally. (iv) Relied on documents were never supplied to petitioner despite repeated demand. (v) No witness was produced to prove charges though genuinity of documents was also challenged and the same were not verified by producing original documents; no witness appeared to prove documents still said documents were taken as valid evidences. (vi) Disciplinary Authority remanded matter to Inquiry Officer for further inquiry but Inquiry Officer in fact proceeded with a de novo inquiry which was impermissible. (vii) Charge was not proved at all and only on conjectures and surmises, without application of mind, petitioner has been held guilty of the charge. (viii) Tribunal has not considered various documents and authorities cited by counsel for petitioner before it and has also failed to consider that several issues were raised before authorities concerned who also failed to consider those relevant issues. 18. (viii) Tribunal has not considered various documents and authorities cited by counsel for petitioner before it and has also failed to consider that several issues were raised before authorities concerned who also failed to consider those relevant issues. 18. Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, besides advancing oral submissions, noted in brief above, has also filed a written submission and placed reliance on K.R. Deb vs. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong, AIR 1971 SC 1447 ; Bhagwati Prasad Dubey vs. The Food Corporation of India, AIR 1988 SC 434 ; and, Rajendra Prasad Gupta and another vs. State of U.P. and another, 1999(83) FLR 1102. 19. Points (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) can be considered altogether. Charge against petitioner is that he has been imposed penalty by Adjudicating Authorities under the provisions of Act, 1962 for carrying contravened foreign goods from Nepal and this amounts to "conduct unbecoming of a Government servant" and is in violation of Rule 3 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1964"). In support of above charge no witness was cited. Only some documents were relied, as we have noted above. After receiving charge sheet dated 20.12.1983, petitioner submitted a letter dated 27.01.1984 to Officer Incharge AOC (Records) requesting for supply of documents relied in support of charge sheet, mentioned in Annexure-3 thereof. Copies of these documents were supplied to petitioner, where after vide letter dated 20.07.1984 he demanded some additional documents for his defence. 20. Major V.K. Nijhawan was appointed as Inquiry Officer by Brig. B.K. Kalra vide order dated 31.01.1985. Oral inquiry proceedings commenced on 13.08.1985. Petitioner appeared before Inquiry Officer and initially requested that since appeal against Adjudication Order is pending, therefore, inquiry should be withheld. Petitioner's defence representative then insisted upon that documents supplied to him are not verified or certified, therefore, authentic copies of documents should be made available to him. 21. Inquiry Officer asked petitioner, whether he accepts charge or not, to which no reply was given and instead it was said on behalf of petitioner that the charge levelled against him is vague, indefinite and unspecific, therefore, charge should be revised. In the circumstances, Inquiry Officer proceeded with oral inquiry treating as if the charge has been denied by petitioner. 22. In the circumstances, Inquiry Officer proceeded with oral inquiry treating as if the charge has been denied by petitioner. 22. During course of oral inquiry, petitioner, it appears, insisted for supply of documents mentioned in Annexure-3 and thereupon Presenting Officer informed Inquiry Officer that the said documents were already supplied. This is mentioned in para 9 of inquiry report dated 12.12.1985 and reads as under: "9. During the hearing on 07.12.85 the presenting officer explained that the copies of documents listed in annexure III of the memorandum were already supplied to the delinquent officials and the additional documents demanded by them are not in possession/ control of this depot which can not be made available to the delinquent officials." (emphasis added) 23. The factum that documents were supplied to petitioner was not disputed. On the contrary what was argued before Inquiry Officer is that copies supplied to petitioner were neither genuine nor authentic and, therefore, inadmissible in the eyes of law. He also complained of non supply of additional documents. This is also evident from para 10 of findings recorded by earlier Inquiry Officer in its report dated 12.12.1985. Aforesaid inquiry report also demonstrates that petitioner and his Defence Assistant were given opportunity to inspect documents but the same was declined on the ground that mere inspection will not make these documents admissible in evidence. Again petitioner submitted a list of six documents before Inquiry Officer out of which five were supplied. Petitioner, however, continued to insist for production of original documents for inspection, to which Presenting Officer said that original documents were not in his control, hence not possible. This is evident from paras 11, 12 and 13 of inquiry report dated 12.12.1985. 24. Above facts show that documents relied in support of charges were supplied to petitioner but what he insisted upon is production of original documents which could not be produced by Presenting Officer since original documents belong to Custom Department and Presenting Officer had no access to them. In our view, in a departmental proceeding when copies of documents are supplied and it is not shown that said copies are manufactured or tempered, mere fact that original documents are not made available, will not vitiate proceedings as non production of original documents will not make copies of such documents inadmissible in departmental inquiry since Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as "Act, 1872") is not applicable. Therefore, submission that relied on documents were not supplied and opportunity was not given is not accepted. 25. We also find that Inquiry Officer permitted inspection of documents but that was also declined by petitioner and his Defence Assistant. Therefore, it cannot be said, in the entirety of facts as discussed above, that inquiry proceeding in the present case is vitiated in law for non supply or non production of original documents in oral inquiry. 26. Further submission that oral deposition of defence witnesses has not been believed, is also of no consequence in view of order passed by Custom Authorities imposing penalty upon petitioner. We do not find any illegality in the procedure followed by respondents for the reason that imposition of penalty by Adjudicating Authority of Custom Department had attained finality in appeal. The factum of carrying of contraband foreign goods by petitioner causing imposition of penalty upon him is a proven fact. Mere oral evidence produced before Inquiry Officer could not have been treated to be a discharge of burden by petitioner. In any case, in assessment of evidence, it is upon Inquiry Officer to believe one evidence and discard another and unless wholly inadmissible evidence has been accepted or there is some otherwise illegality in departmental inquiry, this Court in judicial review would not sit in appeal over the manner in which evidence has been assessed by disciplinary authority. Therefore, Points (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) are answered against petitioner. 27. Now we come to Point (iii). Therefore, Points (i), (ii), (iv) and (v) are answered against petitioner. 27. Now we come to Point (iii). It is true that initially respondents proposed to impose punishment upon petitioner by treating order of penalty as having "conduct led to conviction" and on that basis a regular departmental inquiry could have been dispensed with in view of proviso to Article 311(2) of Constitution, which reads as under: "Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed: Provided further that this clause shall not apply-- (a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank ins satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or (c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry." (emphasis added) 28. However, subsequently a regular departmental inquiry has been conducted and, therefore, this argument that penalty does not amount to "conduct led to conviction" is of no consequence for the reason that department has initiated regular disciplinary inquiry and conduct of petitioner in carrying contraband foreign goods from Nepal to India is a "conduct unbecoming of a Government servant" which constitute misconduct under Rule 3 of Rules, 1964. It is not a case that departmental inquiry has been dispensed with and petitioner has been punished. Hence, this question is also answered against petitioner. 29. Now we come to Point (iv) in support whereof Supreme Court's judgment in K.R. Deb (supra) has been relied. It is not a case that departmental inquiry has been dispensed with and petitioner has been punished. Hence, this question is also answered against petitioner. 29. Now we come to Point (iv) in support whereof Supreme Court's judgment in K.R. Deb (supra) has been relied. It cannot be doubted that in K.R. Deb (supra) construing Rule 15 of Rules, 1965 Supreme Court said that in a particular case if no proper inquiry has been held and some serious defect has been crept into inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, disciplinary authority may ask Inquiry Officer to record further evidence but there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiry on the ground that report of Inquiry Officer does not appeal to disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion. 30. In the present case, aforesaid judgment clearly supports petitioner and reasons given by disciplinary authority directing alleged further inquiry are nothing but is non approval of inquiry report in totality for irrelevant reasons and to this extent the power exercised by disciplinary authority in sending matter back to Inquiry Officer was clearly illegal and unsustainable. However in the peculiar facts of instant case this situation does not help petitioner for the reason that even in second inquiry report Inquiry Officer held that charge levelled against petitioner not proved. Disciplinary authority thereafter has assessed evidence on its own and recorded its own finding. Therefore, the fault committed by disciplinary authority in remitting the matter to Inquiry Officer under the garb of further inquiry, though it was a virtual re-inquiry, would not help petitioner since the result of inquiry was same and the order of punishment has been imposed by disciplinary authority after making assessment on its own, on the material available on record. Thus even this question is answered against petitioner. 31. However, there is one more aspect which has also been pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that in fact here is a case where petitioner has been punished without any evidence to prove his alleged misconduct and, therefore, proceedings including punishment order are vitiated in law. 32. This aspect requires serious consideration. 31. However, there is one more aspect which has also been pointed out by learned counsel for petitioner that in fact here is a case where petitioner has been punished without any evidence to prove his alleged misconduct and, therefore, proceedings including punishment order are vitiated in law. 32. This aspect requires serious consideration. Petitioner who visited Nepal was claimed to have carried with him some contraband foreign goods which were intercepted by custom authorities and thereupon a penalty was imposed upon him. In this regard admittedly there was no oral evidence and the only evidence on record are the orders passed by adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority and letters communicating those orders to departmental authorities. These orders per se have been treated to be a conclusive evidence requiring neither any corroboration nor any evidence in rebuttal since petitioner has been imposed penalty by custom authorities. The question is, whether aforesaid two orders were sufficient to hold petitioner guilty of misconduct under Rule 3 of Rules, 1964, which reads as under: "3. General.-- (1) Every Government servant shall at all times-- (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. The question is, whether aforesaid two orders were sufficient to hold petitioner guilty of misconduct under Rule 3 of Rules, 1964, which reads as under: "3. General.-- (1) Every Government servant shall at all times-- (i) maintain absolute integrity; (ii) maintain devotion to duty; and (iii) do nothing which is unbecoming of a Government servant. (iv) commit himself to and uphold the supremacy of the Constitution and democratic values; (v) defend and uphold the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, public order, decency and morality; (vi) maintain high ethical standards and honesty; (vii) maintain political neutrality; (viii) promote the principles of merit, fairness and impartiality in the discharge of duties; (ix) maintain accountability and transparency; (x) maintain responsiveness to the public, particularly to the weaker section; (xi) maintain courtesy and good behaviour with the public; (xii) take decisions solely in public interest and use or cause to use public resources efficiently, effectively and economically; (xiii) declare any private interests relating to his public duties and take steps to resolve any conflicts in a way that protects the public interest; (xiv) not place himself under any financial or other obligations to any individual or organization which may influence him in the performance of his official duties; (xv) not misuse his position as civil servant and not take decisions in order to derive financial or material benefits for himself, his family or his friends; (xvi) make choices, take decisions and make recommendations on merit alone; (xvii) act with fairness and impartiality and not discriminate against anyone, particularly the poor and the under-privileged sections of society; (xviii) refrain from doing anything which is or may be contrary to any law, rules, regulations and established practices; (xix) maintain discipline in the discharge of his duties and be liable to implement the lawful orders duly communicated to him; (xx) maintain confidentiality in the performance of his official duties as required by any laws for the time being in force, particularly with regard to information, disclosure of which may prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, friendly relation with foreign countries or lead to incitement of an offence or illegal or unlawful gain to any person; (xxi) perform and discharge his duties with the highest degree of professionalism and dedication to the best of his abilities. (2) (i) Every Government servant holding a supervisory post shall take all possible steps to ensure the integrity and devotion to duty of all Government servants for the time being under his control and authority; (ii) No Government servant shall, in the performance of his official duties, or in the exercise of powers conferred on him, act otherwise than in his best judgment except when he is acting under the direction of his official superior; (iii) The direction of the official superior shall ordinarily be in writing. Oral direction to subordinates shall be avoided, as far as possible. Where the issue of oral direction becomes unavoidable, the official superior shall confirm it in writing immediately thereafter; (iv) A Government servant who has received oral direction from his official superior shall seek confirmation of the same in writing as early as possible, whereupon it shall be the duty of the official superior to confirm the direction in writing. Explanation I.- A Government servant who habitually fails to perform the task assigned to him within the time set for the purpose and with the quality of performance expected to him shall be deemed to be lacking in devotion to duty within the meaning the cause (ii) of sub-rule (1). Explanation II. - Nothing in clause (ii) of sub-rule (2) shall be construed as empowering a Government servant to evade his responsibilities by seeking instructions from, or approval of, a superior officer or authority when such instructions are not necessary under the scheme of distribution of powers and responsibilities." 33. It is said that carrying of contraband goods by itself is not a serious misconduct under Rules, 1964. What items were actually carried by petitioner and whether carrying of such items was only an irregularity attracting higher rate of custom duty in the form of penalty or the goods which could not have been permitted to be imported in the country and mere possession thereof is illegal and an offence neither is shown nor considered nor discussed. In fact the respondents authorities have not at all examined the matter on this aspect. In order to demonstrate that petitioner committed a misconduct under Rules, 1964 it was incumbent upon respondent-disciplinary authority to adduce evidence to prove his misconduct. 34. In fact the respondents authorities have not at all examined the matter on this aspect. In order to demonstrate that petitioner committed a misconduct under Rules, 1964 it was incumbent upon respondent-disciplinary authority to adduce evidence to prove his misconduct. 34. The two orders passed by adjudicating authority and appellate authority at the best could be an evidence to show that penalty was imposed upon petitioner on the allegation that he carried some contraband goods from Nepal with his other associates. The proceedings of penalty under Act, 1962 by adjudicating authority is a summary proceeding and not a trial by competent Court. There is no rule under Rules, 1964 that if there is a technical violation of provisions of Excise Act, Customs Act or some other Act, the Government servant shall be deemed to be guilty of a gross misconduct. There are cases in which a person may be penalized but such mere imposition of penalty will not be treated to be commission of such an offence so as to hold such person, a Government servant, guilty of gross misconduct for such mere imposition of penalty. For example if a Government servant is imposed fine under Motor Vehicles Act for crossing signal line in violation of Traffic Rules etc. then mere imposition of such fine will be deemed to be "misconduct" under Rule 3 of Rules, 1964 against such Government servant. Similarly, there are many acts and omissions which constitute offence like construction without sanction of map which is a compoundable offence under statute and similar others but in such cases if fine is imposed or incumbent Government servant pay any compounding fee, in our view, it cannot be said that such violation per se amounts to misconduct under Rule 3 of Rules, 1964. 35. Here statutory Adjudicatory Orders passed by Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority can be an evidence of mere imposition of penalty but cannot be an evidence of alleged misconduct. It was incumbent upon disciplinary authority not only to specify the alleged misconduct, but also to prove such misconduct by adducing cogent evidence. 35. Here statutory Adjudicatory Orders passed by Adjudicating Authority and Appellate Authority can be an evidence of mere imposition of penalty but cannot be an evidence of alleged misconduct. It was incumbent upon disciplinary authority not only to specify the alleged misconduct, but also to prove such misconduct by adducing cogent evidence. An adjudication order per se cannot be said to be an evidence for misconduct, else in all such cases there would be no scope of any departmental inquiry for the reason that authorities will treat such orders to be a proved misconduct and it would not require any defence evidence and in such case, departmental inquiry would be nothing but a formality and an eye wash leaving no scope of defence to delinquent employee and thereby department can always claim exemption from proving the charge though onus lies upon department to prove charge. 36. At this stage, we would also like to point out with reference to statutory provisions that under Act, 1962 there is no word defined as "contraband items" or "contraband goods". Act, 1962 contemplates certain kinds of goods like imported goods, prohibited goods, notified goods, specified goods and dutiable goods. 37. Terms "imported goods" and "prohibited goods" are defined in Section 2(25) and (33) and read as under: "(25) "imported goods" means any goods brought into India from a place outside India but does not include goods which have been cleared for home consumption." "(33) "prohibited goods" means any goods the import or export of which is subject to any prohibition under this Act or any other law for the time being in force but does not include any such goods in respect of which the conditions subject to which the goods are permitted to be imported or exported have been complied with." 38. Terms "notified goods" and "specified goods" have been defined in Sections 11A(d) and 11H(e) and read as under: "11A(d) "notified goods" means goods specified in the notification issued under section 11B." "11H(e) "specified goods" means goods of any description specified in the notification issued under section 11-I in relation to a specified area." 39. "Dutiable goods" as such is not defined but it attracts duty as provided in Section 12 of Act, 1962. 40. "Dutiable goods" as such is not defined but it attracts duty as provided in Section 12 of Act, 1962. 40. Section 11 confers power upon Central Government to issue notification in the official gazette prohibiting items either absolutely or subject to such conditions (to be fulfilled before or after clearance) as may be specified in notification, for import or export of goods of any specified description. Therefore, prohibited goods may be such which are absolutely prohibited or prohibition is conditional. Besides, under export and import policy there are certain goods placed under restricted categories for import and export. It is not the case in hand where alleged goods brought by petitioner were forfeited or confiscated since they were absolutely prohibited but possession thereof has been allowed after imposing fine. Therefore, it cannot be said that what was allegedly brought by petitioner was something so injurious or dangerous or per se prohibited, mere possession whereof was punishable being a crime. Therefore, in order to constitute misconduct in such a case the facts have to be examined in each and every case in the light of relevant aspects and there cannot be a hard and fact rule that, fine if has been imposed by Custom Authorities for possessing certain goods, import whereof was not made inconformity with provisions of Act, 1962, it would be per se a "misconduct" under Rule 3 of Rules, 1964 inviting penalty pursuant to disciplinary proceedings. 41. Having gone through the record we find that except of these two orders which were taken to be sufficient self proved documents to hold petitioner guilty of misconduct, there was no other evidence. 42. In a departmental inquiry though charge need not be proved like a criminal charge, i.e., beyond doubt, but a Government servant can also not be punished on mere suspicion but evidence must exist to prove his misconduct. In Union of India vs. H. C. Goel, (1964) AIR SC 364 Supreme Court said: "Though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the appellant to root out corruption from public service, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. In Union of India vs. H. C. Goel, (1964) AIR SC 364 Supreme Court said: "Though we fully appreciate the anxiety of the appellant to root out corruption from public service, we cannot ignore the fact that in carrying out the said purpose, mere suspicion should not be allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries. It may be that the technical rules which govern criminal trials in courts may not necessarily apply to disciplinary proceedings, but nevertheless, the principle that in punishing the guilty scrupulous care must be taken to see that the innocent are not punished, applies as much to regular criminal trials as to disciplinary enquiries held under the statutory rules." (emphasis added) 43. In view of above we are clearly of the view that here is a case where petitioner has been penalized by disciplinary authority by imposing punishment of compulsory retirement on a charge which has not been proved at all since there was no evidence to prove misconduct of petitioner and, therefore, punishment imposed upon petitioner is patently illegal, cannot be sustained. It is true that in departmental inquiry when a person is punished this Court does not enter into judicial review by assessing evidence like appellate authority but where a charge is levelled and incumbent held guilty of misconduct without adducing any evidence, such order of punishment cannot be sustained. 44. In view of our discussion made above, impugned order of punishment and appellate order cannot be sustained. Tribunal has also erred in law in failing to consider the above aspect of the matter and, therefore, judgment of Tribunal also cannot be sustained. 45. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned punishment order dated 02.04.1991, appellate order dated 14.08.1992 and judgment and order of Tribunal dated 10.11.2000 are hereby quashed. Petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits.