In a disciplinary proceeding, the disciplinary authority cannot make a finding on mere suspicion and not co-related with the evidence adduced.

1. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11th of September, 1985 passed in CO. No. 15469 (W) of 1985. By the aforesaid order, the writ petition filed by the appellant Shri ananda Chakraborty was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge. The aforesaid writ petition was moved by the appellant Shri Andnda Chakraborty against the order of dismissal from service passed by the respondent No. 5, the District Traffic Superintendent, Eastern Railway, chit pur, Calcutta.

2. IT appears that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant by issuing a charge sheet along with imputation of charges and statements of imputation of misconduct, since referred to in annexure 'a' to the writ petition. The charges levelled against the appellant are set out hereunder :-

It further appears that in the said disciplinary proceeding several witnesses were examined on behalf of the Railway Administration and the appellant viz. the delinquent officer also deposed and he took the assistance of a defence helper being one of the Railway ex-employees. The Enquiring Officer submitted a report containing his findings and it appears from the said report that he came to the finding that the charges. Nos. l and 2 had been proved and with regard to charge no. 3 the finding of the Enquiring Officer was to the effect that although the delinquent had declared his personal cash in the concerned register but such declaration had not been counter signed by the superior officers and although there had been contributory negligence by the concerned Railway Officers in not signing such declarations of the delinquent officer, he cannot be fully absolved of his. responsibility. in not getting his declarations countersigned by the superior officers. The enquiring officer also negatived the contention of the delinquent-officer that non. production of the alleged extent order requiring declaration of personal cash at the enquiry, the said charge could not be. established because P. W. I had deposed that the delinquent officer had. a duty to declare his personal cash and to get it countersigned if it had exceeded Rs. 20/.

3. WITH regard to charge No. 2, the Enquiring Officer came to the finding that the defence plea that the delinquent officer and other booking clerks could not declare personal cash due to non-availability of such personal cash declaration [register could not be accepted in the absence of recorded evidence to that effect. The enquiring officer had held that the delinquent officer and other booking clerks did not attach proper importance to the requirement of declaration of personal cash in the personal cash declaration a register. The disciplinary authority did not discuss the contentions of the delinquent officer in the context of the evidence on re-cord but made a very cryptic finding containing about nine lines to sustain the impugned order of dismissal. The finding of the disciplinary authority is set out hereunder;

" I fully agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Sri- Ananda Chakraborty- has committed serious breach of trust reposed, in him by the Rly. Administration, demoralised himself, to the ex-tent possible to serve his selfish and i. e. monetary greed and helped in leakage of Rly. revenue. Such serious nature of offence ' warrants drastic action. to meet the end of justice I am inclined to infer this as a fit case for removal' and hence, I order that Shri Ananda Chakraborty be removed from service. "

4. THE Teamed trial Judge dismissed the writ petition made by the appellant' inter alia on the finding that the writ court should not interfere with the findings of fact by sitting as a, Court of Appeal over the findings made in a disciplinary proceeding The learned trial judge was of the view that there was no perversity in the finding made in the disciplinary proceeding for which' interference by the writ court was called for Against the aforesaid decision of the learned trial Judge, the instant appeal has been pref