Disciplinary dismissal cannot stand without evidence linking the employee to the alleged misconduct; no-evidence findings are vulnerable to writ interference.

A disciplinary finding cannot stand where the evidence does not reasonably connect the charged employee to the alleged misconduct. The material here was found insufficient because the relevant witness was not examined, the documentary evidence was neutral, and the employee's own statement did not support the charge. On that basis, a finding of guilt based on no evidence was treated as vulnerable to judicial interference in writ proceedings. The dismissal was therefore held unsustainable, and compensation was indicated in place of reinstatement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary finding and dismissal could stand when the charge was held proved without any evidence linking the appellant to the alleged misconduct.

Analysis: The material relied upon did not establish a nexus between the appellant and the alleged fraudulent procurement of appointment. The cited witness was not examined, the documentary material was neutral, and the appellant's statement did not support the charge. A finding of guilt cannot rest on evidence that does not reasonably connect the charged officer with the misconduct, and a writ court may interfere where the finding is vitiated by absence of evidence.

Conclusion: The finding of guilt and the dismissal order were unsustainable and were set aside; the appellant was entitled to compensation instead of reinstatement.

---