Departmental punishment for alleged bribery fails where guilt rests on no evidence and a perverse finding of fact.

A departmental dismissal based on an alleged bribe demand was held unsustainable where the employee consistently denied the charge, claimed false implication, and the record did not show any substantive evidence linking him to the alleged recovery. The enquiry and appellate orders failed to explain how the recovery was attributable to him, and no witness stated that money was recovered from his possession or that corroborative material such as chemical examination supported the charge. The court reiterated that, although departmental proceedings are decided on preponderance of probabilities, the finding must still rest on intrinsic, reliable material. On these facts, the guilt finding was treated as perverse and a case of no evidence, so the dismissal and appellate orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dismissal from service and rejection of the departmental appeal, founded on an alleged bribe demand in a departmental enquiry, could be sustained when the petitioner consistently denied the allegation and the record disclosed no substantive evidence linking him with the alleged recovery.

Analysis: The disciplinary record showed that the petitioner had not admitted the charge; rather, he consistently asserted that he had been falsely implicated and that the currency note was attempted to be foisted on him. The enquiry and appellate orders did not explain how the alleged recovery was attributable to the petitioner, particularly when no witness stated that money was actually recovered from his possession and no corroborative material, such as chemical examination or comparable departmental evidence, was relied upon. Although departmental proceedings operate on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, that standard still requires some intrinsic material or reliable evidence capable of supporting the charge. On the facts recorded, the finding of guilt rested essentially on a mistaken reading of the petitioner's explanation and amounted to a case of no evidence and perversity.

Conclusion: The dismissal order and the appellate order could not be sustained and were liable to be quashed; the petitioner succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The punishment of dismissal from service was set aside, and the consequential service benefits followed from the quashing of the disciplinary and appellate orders.

Ratio Decidendi: A departmental punishment cannot be sustained where the finding of guilt is perverse and unsupported by substantive evidence, even though the standard of proof is only preponderance of probabilities.

---