The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of natural justice, the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings, and the limited scope of judicial review.

( 1 ) BOTH these writ applications involving common questions of fact and law were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. FACTS: -

( 2 ) THE Complainant Mr. Prubjit Singh Manku, a holder of British passport bearing No. 015538198 along with his relative Mr. T. S. Jitla was going to jaipur from Indira Ghandhi International Airport. They were stopped on the way by the respondents who checked their luggage and put them under threat of arrest; whereafter allegedly a sum of 35 pounds was extorted from them.

( 3 ) ON the basis of the said complaint, the Respondent No. 2 by an order dated 6. 10. 1997 initiated a departmental proceeding against the Petitioners wherein the inquiry officer examined P. W.- 1, Constable Devis V. J. and P. W.- 2, Trilok Singh Titla but the complainant Prubjit Singh Manku did not appear before the Enquiry Officer.

( 4 ) THE Petitioner on 14. 5. 1998 in response to the notice to show- cause submitted his written statement stating that the taxi vide No. DLT - 3808 ,of mr. Mahinder Singh, Taxi Driver broke down and the Police Control Room (PCR) driver allegedly helped him.

( 5 ) THE inquiry officer in his report dated 7. 7. 1998 held that the charges against the petitioner and two others have been proved. The respondent no. 3 Deputy Commissioner of Police issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner and two others on 14. 8. 1998 to show-cause as to why the delinquent officers should not be dismissed from service whereupon representation were filed by the delinquent officers. The respondent No. 3 vide his order dated 2. 12. 1998 dismissed the petitioners representation. The other two co-accused did not submit their reply in defence.

( 6 ) THE petitioner preferred statutory appeal before Respondent No. 2 against the order of punishment dated 2. 12. 1998. The Respondent No. 2 vide his order dated 8. 9. 1999 dismissed the statutory appeal preferred by the Petitioner.

( 7 ) THE appointing authority by an order dated 2. 12. 1998 passed an order dismissing the petitioners from service. Questioning the same, the petitioners preferred the Original Application before the Central Administrative tribunal, which was dismissed by reason of the impugned judgment dated 16. 1. 2001.

( 8 ) MR. Shyam Babu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, inter alia, would submit that the learned tribunal committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment in so far as it failed to take into consideration that as the complainant was not examined, it should have been held that no evidence had been brought on records to arrive at a finding that the charges have been proved. According to the learned counsel the Inquiry Officer committed a serious illegality in so far as he relied upon a part of the evidence pw 2.

( 9 ) THE learned counsel has taken us through the deposition of the said witnesses and submitted that keeping in view the fact that PW 2 neither could identify the petitioners nor being a witness of extortion of the amount, the inquiry officer could not have held the petitioners guilty of the charges of misconduct levelled against them. The learned counsel would contend that no cogent or sufficient reason was assigned by the inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority in support of the findings arrived at by there against the petitioners.

( 10 ) THE learned counsel on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that the number of the vehicle (Gypsy) which was being used by the delinquent officers was disclosed in the complainant s petition. PW 1 proved that the said vehicle was being used by the petitioners. It was pointed out that the complaint was received through the uncle of the complainant who was examined in the disciplinary proceeding as PW 2.

( 11 ) THE complainant was a schoolboy. He at the relevant time was 15 years old. A bare perusal of the said complaint would clearly show the manner in which the extortion took place. In a ca