The main legal point established is that the enquiry procedure must be followed as per the rules, and the findings must be based on some evidence. Additionally, the court clarified that discharge is not equivalent to clean acquittal.

F. I. REBELLO, J.

( 1 ) THE Petitioner joined services of Respondent No. 1 in the accounts Department as Lower Division clerk. In the year 1977, F. I. R. came to be lodged against the Petitioner and three others for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 380, 411 and 120 (b) of I. P. C. The investigation was conducted by A. G. P. and criminal Case was filed in the court of metropolitan Magistrate, 20th Court, esplanade, Bombay. The Petitioner was suspended by order of 6-1-1977. The petitioner along with another amongst the five accused, were discharged. In fact the discharge order of 24-7-1988 would show that the learned Metropolitan Magistrate held that there was no evidence and that the Petitioner and another had no connection with the transaction and A. P. P. had conceded the position. The Respondent did not prefer any appeal or revision against the order of discharge.

( 2 ) BY an order of 24-7-1978 the order of suspension was reviewed and the petitioner was reinstated. On 9-7-1981 petitioner received charge-sheet. The charges as set out against the petitioner were as under:

"article I : That the above said Shri. G. B. Patil misused his official position to help some outside persons in a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Government of maharashtra by presenting forged bills to the Pay and Accounts Office, Bombay, by getting the forged bills passed for payment by committing theft of cheques along with the bills, by dishonestly receiving and retaining a part of the stolen property out of the total amount of Rs. 70,085/- and thus becoming a party to the conspiracy. Article II: That Shri. G. B. Patil was found in possession of unaccounted cash to the extent of Rs. 11,500/- as reported by the Anti Corruption Bureau as a result of their investigation. Article III: That Shri. G. B. Patil misused the Government Quarters allotted to him by the Government of Maharashtra, by accommodating unauthorised tenant in the said Quarters. "the Petitioner along with charge-sheet was given list of documents on which the department intended to rely upon in the enquiry. It is the case of the Petitioner that he denied the charges and sought documents and after which he would file his reply. The enquiry thereafter came to be held and the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 21-2-1985. In so far as first two charges are concerned, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty and considering the gravity of the misconducts proposed that he should be dismissed from service with immediate effect. In so far as third charge of subletting, based on the admission by the Petitioner, the Enquiry officer held the Petitioner to be guilty. However, proposed punishment of holding up of one increment for the period of three years without effect on the future increments. The disciplinary authority issued show cause notice dated 21st February, 1985 to the petitioner enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and further setting out that he had provisionally come to the conclusion that the penalty of dismissal be imposed on the petitioner. The Petitioner was called upon to give his representation on the penalty proposed based on the evidence adduced in the enquiry. Pursuant to said show cause notice and memorandum the Respondent filed his reply dated 27-3-1985. Various contentions were raised as to why the findings of the enquiry officer should not be accepted and that he be exonerated. With specific reference to Charges contained in Article II in Paragraph 10, this is what the Petitioner set out:

"with reference to charges contained in article 2, I have to explain all the possession of Rs. 11,500/- by me. I further submit that there is nothing on record even to indicate in the first place I had received any amount from the stolen amount referred to in Article I and in the second place rs. l 1,500/- formed the part of stolen amount referred to in Article 1. In fact article 2 has also no basis in as much as there was no data and material before the author