JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records pertaining to the order of the 2nd respondent in Proc.No.E4/35683/2002 (ii) dated 19.12.2003 and order of the 1st respondent in Ref.No.E4/35683/2002 dated 02.02.2005 and confirmed in proceedings in Na.Ka.No.P3/15724/2014 dated 19.10.2015 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal, incompetent and ultravires and consequently direct the respondents to pay all the benefits to the petitioner withheld by them.) 1. The petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned orders of the 2nd respondent dated 19.12.2003; 1st respondent dated 02.02.2005; confirmed by the 1st respondent in and by proceedings dated 19.10.2015 and to consequently direct the respondents to pay all benefits withheld by them to the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that petitioner was appointed as driver in the Tamil Nadu Tea Plantation Corporation Ltd on 16.06.1986. The petitioner was charged for a theft that occurred at Cherambady Tea Factory. Enquiry was initiated on 21.02.2003 through Police officers and enquiry officer appointed by the administration. The petitioner gave a detailed explanation stating that he was in no way connected to the alleged theft that took place. The enquiry officer held the charges were not proved. However, the 2nd respondent imposed a punishment reducing the petitioner to bottom scale of pay for 3 years with cumulative effect. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent and he also filed a Writ Petition in W.P.No.8029 of 2004 and this Court dismissed the Writ Petition directing the 1st respondent to dispose of the appeal expeditiously. Subsequently, the 1st respondent dismissed the appeal upholding the order of the 2nd respondent. The other co-delinquent had filed W.P.No.23269 of 2006 and this Court allowed the Writ Petition quashing the proceedings against the said Kumaresan, the co-delinquent connected with the same offence. It is the case of the petitioner that though it was a case of no material evidence produced by the prosecution and moreover, when the co-delinquent had succeeded in getting the charges quashed against him, the petitioner was also entitled to the same relief. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that though it was a case of no material evidence produced by the prosecution and moreover, when the co-delinquent had succeeded in getting the charges quashed against him, the petitioner was also entitled to the same relief. 3. The respondents have filed a counter stating that the theft occurred because of the negligence of the petitioner and Corporation suffered a loss of approximately Rs.4,775/-.It is the specific stand of the respondents that all records were carefully examined and punishment was awarded and there was nothing illegal or irregular on the action initiated by the respondents and they sought for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 4. Heard Mr.R.Jayaprakash, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.T.Arun Kumar, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. This Court has also perused the records filed in form of a typedset of papers and also carefully examined the decisions relied on by the counsel. 6. In W.P.No.23269 of 2006 in and by an order dated 24.07.2014, the other co-delinquent K.Kumaresan has successfully challenged the proceedings initiated against him in respect of the very same offence. The punishment awarded to him was reducing him to bottom level scale for five years with cumulative effect. This Court set aside the impugned proceedings in that case and also directed the respondents to pay the entire arrears that the petitioner therein was entitled, as per Service Rules, including benefit of promotion, notional or otherwise, as the case may be. 7. In Om Pal Singh Vs. Disciplinary Authority and Ors, reported in (2020) 3 SCC 103 , the Hon''ble Supreme Court dealing with entitlement of a delinquent to claim continuity of service and consequential benefits in cases of reinstatement, held that when reinstatement being a consequence of imposition of a lesser punishment, neither backwages nor continuity benefits nor consequential benefits follow as a natural consequence of such reinstatement and upheld the decision of the disciplinary authority in not paying the salary for the period of suspension. 8. This Court has perused the enquiry report filed by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has found that none of the witnesses stated that the petitioner had committed the theft or was even involved in or facilitated the theft of the scrap material causing alleged loss to the Corporation. 8. This Court has perused the enquiry report filed by the enquiry officer. The enquiry officer has found that none of the witnesses stated that the petitioner had committed the theft or was even involved in or facilitated the theft of the scrap material causing alleged loss to the Corporation. The enquiry officer clearly held that there was no material evidence or supportive evidence produced by the prosecution to hold that the suspicion in their minds could be taken as a fact and concluded his report that all the three charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. No doubt, the disciplinary authority, being entitled to differ with the findings of the enquiry officer, decided to proceed independently and ultimately held against the petitioner not withstanding the findings of the enquiry officer and the explanation given by the petitioner. The order of the disciplinary authority was also confirmed in appeal. 9. This Court has perused the order passed in W.P.No.23269 of 2006, where this Court has referred to the co-delinquent in that case viz., the petitioner herein the driver who would have possibly stole or facilitated the materials to be stolen from the factory. This Court took note of the fact that a senior manager of the respondent Corporation was appointed as an enquiry officer and he had clearly found that there was no direct evidence to establish the charges levelled against the co-delinquent. The disciplinary authority however overturned the findings of the enquiry officer in the absence of even any evidence of witnesses to hold that the petitioner had committed theft and had acted dishonestly in connection with the property of the Corporation. Despite disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, who is none else than a senior responsible official of the respondent corporation no independent witness has been relied on by the disciplinary authority to hold that the charges were proved. Department proceedings are also quasi judicial proceedings. It is imperative for the charges levelled against the delinquent to be proved by the management. 10. This Court is conscious of the fact that exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority. Department proceedings are also quasi judicial proceedings. It is imperative for the charges levelled against the delinquent to be proved by the management. 10. This Court is conscious of the fact that exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it cannot sit in appeal over the findings of the disciplinary authority. However, while exercising the power of judicial review, if this Court comes to the conclusion that there is no evidence to hold that the charge of theft has been proved or that the decision is based on no evidence or irrelevant factors, then this Court is entitled to interfere with the findings of the disciplinary authorities. 11. In the instant case, the enquiry officer has, after a detailed enquiry held that the charges were not proved and specifically even referred to the fact that no other witnesses have imputed the allegation of theft against the petitioner herein. Mere suspicion cannot be a ground to hold that an employee is guilty of the alleged offence viz,, theft in the instant case. Unfortunately, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have not based their decision on any material available on record except for proceeding on mere surmises and conjunctures. Suspicion is no substitute for proof, even in departmental proceedings. This Court has perused the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority and does not find any incriminating material or evidence against the petitioner warranting the punishment meted out to him. Moreover, in respect of the very same three charges that were levelled against the co-delinquent, this Court has already set aside the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, from all angles, the petitioner is also entitled to relief from this court. However, in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Om Pal Singh''s case, the petitioner shall not be entitled for salary, during for the period of suspension. However, in all other aspects he will be entitled to monetary and other benefits as that would be available to him under the Service Rules. For all the above reasons, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.