Fair disciplinary inquiry and admissible evidence are essential before removal from service can be sustained.

In disciplinary proceedings, a removal order cannot stand unless the charge is definite, the employee has a proper opportunity to defend, and the enquiry records oral evidence with reasoned findings. The Supreme Court found the guilt finding unsustainable because the authorities relied mainly on selected statements while ignoring material showing that the employee had only been deputed to assist, had not handled the question papers, and was not shown to have caused or concealed the alleged leakage. As the record did not establish the charged misconduct on legally admissible evidence, the removal order and appellate order were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the disciplinary punishment of removal from service was sustainable when the enquiry and the appellate orders were founded on material that did not establish the appellant's unauthorised participation as invigilator or his role in the alleged leakage of question papers, and whether the departmental proceedings complied with the requirement of a proper oral inquiry and principles of natural justice.

Analysis: Rule 17(b) required a definite charge, an opportunity to defend, and an oral inquiry with evidence and recorded findings. The finding of guilt was not supported by any independent appraisal of oral evidence; instead, the disciplinary authorities relied mainly on portions of the Chief Invigilator's statements while ignoring material showing that the appellant had been appointed to assist, had not handled the question papers, and had no role in the mixing of the papers. The record also did not justify the conclusion that he had prevented reporting of the incident. In judicial review, a punishment based on such an infirm foundation cannot be sustained.

Conclusion: The punishment of removal from service and the appellate order were unsustainable and were set aside in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: A disciplinary finding cannot be upheld in judicial review unless it is supported by legally admissible material, a fair inquiry, and a reasoned conclusion based on some tangible evidence establishing the charged misconduct.

---