ORDER : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. This Writ Petition challenges the decision dated 23rd February 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.397 of 2015. 2. The petitioner was aggrieved by the punishment order dated 8th December 2014 which was approved by the Appellate Authority by an order dated 31st July 2015. The petitioner has pleaded that he was appointed as Branch Post Master in the post office Chak 1 KK Chunawadh on 12th January 1998 and discharged his duties with utmost devotion and sincerity. However, he was charged with misappropriating public fund in R.D. and Life Insurance Policy on the basis of certain irregularities detected in the Annual Inspection dated 16th June 2011. He was served a charge-memo on 17th December 2013 with two Articles of charge on imputations that (i) he received money from Smt. Kamla Devi, Chhaminder Singh and Krishna Devi for depositing in their Recurring account but the money received by him were not deposited in their accounts and entries in their passbook were made, and (ii) he received Rs.3366/- from Jaipal Singh on 23rd June 2011 against his Life Insurance Policy but this amount was also not deposited by him in the Government account. He denied the charges and claimed that he did not receive any amount from the aforesaid account holders and the entries made in the passbook of Smt. Kamla Devi was a mistake. About Chhaminder Singh, he offered an explanation that Rs.1400/- given by the said account-holder to the petitioner was deposited on the same day but mistakenly in unclassified account. He also denied the charge that Smt. Krishna Devi gave Rs.300/-to him on 31st July 2010. As regards the entry in the Life Insurance Policy of Jaipal Singh, he offered an explanation that the passbook was mistakenly stamped. The petitioner also denied the statement made by him to the Inspector of Post Office saying that his statement was procured under undue influence. 3. The Inspector of the Post Office at Suratgarh submitted a report to the Inquiry Officer indicating that the allegations made against the delinquent Government employee were found correct. The petitioner challenged the findings recorded in the inquiry by filing his reply on 13th October 2014. 3. The Inspector of the Post Office at Suratgarh submitted a report to the Inquiry Officer indicating that the allegations made against the delinquent Government employee were found correct. The petitioner challenged the findings recorded in the inquiry by filing his reply on 13th October 2014. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted the final inquiry report on 11th November 2014 and the petitioner was offered an opportunity to reply to second show cause notice and, in compliance thereof, he filed his reply on 25th November 2014. However, the disciplinary authority by an order dated 8th December 2014 passed an order of removal from service and, as noticed above, the appeal preferred by him has been dismissed. 4. The Tribunal held that the departmental authorities rightly accepted the inquiry report and, that, not even an inquiry was required in the face of admission of guilt by the delinquent bank employee. The Tribunal referred to the decision in “Central Bank of India Vs. Karunamoy Banerjee”, AIR 1968 SC 266 where the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that if the workman admits his guilt then it would be a mere empty formality to insist upon the Management to lead evidence in support of the charge framed against the delinquent Government employee. The Tribunal also referred to the decisions in “Channabasappa Basappa Happali, Vs. State of Mysore”, AIR 1972 SC 32 and “Manager Boisahabi tea Estate Vs. P.O. Labour Court”, 1981 Lab IC 557 on the above proposition. 5. The Tribunal further referred to the decisions in “State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao”, AIR 1963 SC 1723 , “Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Chitra Venkata Rao” 1975 (2) SCC 557 , “Union of India Vs. P. Gunasekaran” 2015 (4) SLR 244, “U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Suresh Chand Sharma”, (2010) 6 SCC 555 and held that no interference was required in the matter, not even with the punishment of removal from service on the ground of the same being disproportionate to the charge found proved against the delinquent bank employee, and dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 6. Suresh Chand Sharma”, (2010) 6 SCC 555 and held that no interference was required in the matter, not even with the punishment of removal from service on the ground of the same being disproportionate to the charge found proved against the delinquent bank employee, and dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner. 6. While this is true that the Writ Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere with a finding of fact recorded by the departmental authorities provided some evidence was produced in the domestic inquiry against the delinquent Government employee, this also has to be kept in mind that the order of punishment passed against the delinquent Government employee cannot be based on mere surmises and conjunctures. Where the evidence produced by the department against the delinquent Government employee is not legally admissible or where such evidence cannot form the foundation for passing an order of punishment, the Writ Court shall not be denuded of its powers to interfere with the order of punishment passed against the delinquent Government employee. These principles are applied in the proceeding before the Tribunal and, in fact, there is no legal bar in examining the records by the Tribunal and come to a different finding on fact. 7. The allegation of corrupt practice must be proved even in a domestic inquiry against the delinquent Government employee by producing some cogent and convincing material which would point out accusing finger towards the delinquent Government employee. The disciplinary authority proceeded to examine the statements of Smt. Kamla Devi, Chhaminder Singh, Krishna Devi and Jaipal Singh and recorded a finding that the delinquent bank employee could not produce “any solid basis or a document in his defence”. The disciplinary authority also disbelieved the statement of the delinquent Government employee that on the direction of Prabhu Ram he had deposited some money. The disciplinary authority also did not believe the statements made by Smt. Kamla Devi, Chhaminder Singh and Krishna Devi that they did not give money to the delinquent bank employee for depositing the money in their account. The order of punishment passed against the petitioner is primarily based on his so-called admission made in course of the inquiry. The disciplinary authority also did not believe the statements made by Smt. Kamla Devi, Chhaminder Singh and Krishna Devi that they did not give money to the delinquent bank employee for depositing the money in their account. The order of punishment passed against the petitioner is primarily based on his so-called admission made in course of the inquiry. The disciplinary authority has held as under : English Translation:- “In this regard, the accused employee says that he did not receive the amount for the above accounts from the account holders but the entries and seals were made in the passbooks by mistake and he did not know about the error book. This argument of the accused employee does not seem to be true in any way. Because the accused employee himself has admitted that the amount received on 28.4.2012 under SD-3 for the above mentioned accounts was with him and he has deposited the above mentioned amount in UCR as per SD-4. Similarly, in RPLI policy number R/RJ/JD/EA/101750, he received Rs. 3366/- on 23.06.2011 including installment amount from January 2010 to June 2011 and entered this amount in SD-16 with post office date stamp and his own signature, but did not enter this amount in SD-7, 21 and 24. Regarding this misappropriation also, the accused employee, while admitting that the amount as per SD-3 was kept with him, deposited the above amount in UCR as per SD-4. Thus, after examining the investigation presented by the Investigation Officer, the witnesses and documents presented in the case, the summary of the presenting officer and the representation submitted by the accused employee, the undersigned has come to the conclusion that Shri Indraraj has misappropriated the government money and has also tarnished the image of the department by his activities and he deserves severe punishment.” 8. The Appellate Authority also proceeded on similar lines and held that S.W.1 Smt. Kamla Devi, S.W.4 Chhaminder Singh, S.W.5 Jaipal Singh and S.W.6 Krishna Devi gave contrary statements in collusion with the delinquent bank employee and subsequently retracted from the statements made by them in the examination-in-chief. The Appellate Authority held as under : English Translation:- “7. The appellant's argument that only one account holder Chhamind Singh says that he gave the money on 28.04.2012, the rest of the account holders deny this fact in the final investigation. The Appellate Authority held as under : English Translation:- “7. The appellant's argument that only one account holder Chhamind Singh says that he gave the money on 28.04.2012, the rest of the account holders deny this fact in the final investigation. Thus, no case of embezzlement has been found to be made out in view of the facts and circumstances. The argument of the appellant is not acceptable. Firstly, there is no allegation of not taking the amount into account on 28.04.2012. On 26.04.2012, the appellant himself had given an application to deposit the misappropriated amount voluntarily. Which has been taken on record by the Investigating Officer and marked as document SD-3. Secondly, the government witnesses SW-1 Smt. Kamla wife of late Shri Krishnalal, SW-4 Shri Chhamind Singh, SW-5 Shri Jaipal Singh and SW-6 Krishna Devi have confirmed the truth of their earlier statements SD-1, SD-11, SD-15 and SD-13 respectively during the chief-examination. But later, the appellant, in collusion with SW-1, SW-5 and SW-6, made them say in their statements as part of a well-planned ploy that they had not given the amount to the appellant for deposit on the date mentioned in the charge sheet. When the amount was not given, under which rule was the entry of depositing the amount made in the passbook and why was it printed with a date stamp. And if the entry was made by putting an erroneous stamp, then it should have been cancelled at that time itself. But nothing like this was done by the appellant and the reality is that the appellant has misappropriated the said amount by not crediting it to the government account. And he is presenting such arguments in his defence, which have no importance.” 9. Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 defines the expression “admission” and the provisions under sections 18 to 20 lay down what statements are admissions. This is also relevant to indicate that section 21 deals with the proof of admissions against the person making the admissions. May be an admission by a person is the best evidence against him but this is just a piece of evidence which must be clear and unambiguous in order to relieve the other party of the burden to prove the fact said to have been admitted. May be an admission by a person is the best evidence against him but this is just a piece of evidence which must be clear and unambiguous in order to relieve the other party of the burden to prove the fact said to have been admitted. The petitioner has taken a stand since the beginning that under the influence of the Inspector of Post Office he had signed so-called confession/admission made by him. Now in the aforesaid circumstances where the witnesses did not support the allegation of making deposit by tendering money to the petitioner and the petitioner himself took a defence that under the direction of Prabhu Ram he had deposited the money and his statement was taken under coercion and undue influence, there remains nothing on the record on the basis of which the punishment of removal from service could have been passed by the disciplinary authority. 10. The Tribunal was swayed away by the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal being the first port of judicial adjudication was required to bestow its considerations to the aforementioned aspects of the case and not to just go by so-called admission made by the delinquent bank employee. We may also indicate that the conduct of the petitioner may raise some doubt against him, but then, it is well remembered that suspension howsoever strong cannot take the place of legal evidence on the basis of which the order of punishment could have been passed against him. 11. For the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to interfere with the order dated 23rd February 2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur in Original Application No.397 of 2015. Consequently, the order of punishment dated 08th December 2014 as affirmed by the Appellate order dated 31st July 2015 is quashed. 12. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10369 of 2024 is allowed.