Disciplinary findings based on suspicion and ignored evidence were quashed; spouse-owned property needs a reasoned benami finding.

Disciplinary findings were held unsustainable where the inquiry ignored material evidence favourable to the employee and relied on suspicion, unsupported inferences and inadmissible material. In certiorari under Article 226, interference was justified because the domestic conclusion was based on no proper evidence and caused manifest injustice. The alleged misconduct concerning property in the wife's name also failed: the Conduct Rules cover benami acquisition by the employee or property actually acquired by the employee, but do not treat an independent acquisition by the spouse as the employee's asset without a reasoned finding to that effect. The writ petition succeeded and the impugned orders were set aside for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the disciplinary findings and penalty could be sustained when material evidence favourable to the employee was ignored and inadmissible evidence was relied upon. (ii) Whether the charges relating to acquisition and non-disclosure of property standing in the name of the employee's wife were made out under the Conduct Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the disciplinary findings and penalty could be sustained when material evidence favourable to the employee was ignored and inadmissible evidence was relied upon.

Analysis: In certiorari jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, interference is justified where a domestic finding is based on no evidence, ignores material evidence, or results in manifest injustice. The departmental authorities treated the employee's assets as disproportionate without considering relevant evidence on income, ownership, and source of funds, and relied on suspicion, village gossip, and unsupported inferences. The evidence supporting the employee's case was not meaningfully considered.

Conclusion: The findings on the first charge were vitiated and could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the charges relating to acquisition and non-disclosure of property standing in the name of the employee's wife were made out under the Conduct Rules.

Analysis: Rule 18(2) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 restricts acquisition by a Government servant, including benami acquisition in the name of a family member, but does not prohibit an independent acquisition by the family member herself. Likewise, Rule 18(1) required disclosure of property owned or acquired by the employee or held benami in the name of a family member; absent a finding that the wife's properties were in truth acquired by the employee, omission of those properties from the return could not amount to misconduct. The authorities failed to record the necessary finding and failed to consider evidence showing independent ownership by the wife and father-in-law.

Conclusion: The charges relating to the wife's properties were not properly established.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the disciplinary and appellate orders were set aside, and the matter was sent back for fresh disposal in accordance with law after hearing the employee.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary finding can be quashed in certiorari when it rests on suspicion, ignores material evidence, or relies on inadmissible material; and property standing in a spouse's name cannot be treated as the employee's assets unless there is a reasoned finding that the property was in fact acquired by the employee or held benami.

---