The judgment establishes the importance of a speedy departmental inquiry, the need for evidence to support disciplinary actions, and the court's authority to intervene if the conclusions are unsupported by evidence.

R.S. Chauhan, J.-Heard learned Counsels for the parties.

2. Vide order dated 210.1996, the Appellant was punished by withholding of five increments with cumulative effect. Vide Order dated 111.1996, the increments and allowances admissible to him during his suspension period were also withheld. Vide Order dated 210.1997, the Appellate Authority confirmed the punishment order dated 210.1996 and dismissed the departmental appeal filed by the appellant. Since the appellant was aggrieved by these three orders, he challenged the same before the Honble High Court. However, vide Judgment dated 13.02.1998, the Learned Single Judge was pleased to uphold the impugned orders and to dismiss the writ petition. Hence, the Special Appeal before us.

3. According to the appellant, the factual matrix of the case is that in the years 1977-78, he was posted as Compounder at Primary Health Center, Bhinai, District Ajmer. Since there was no Medical Officer at the Primary Health Center, therefore, he was In-charge of the Center. While the appellant was there, one Miss Leliacia Hamilton was also posted there as Auxiliary Nurse and Midwife. Both, the appellant and Miss Hamilton lived as neighbours. On 03.09.1978, the appellant went on leave to Chittorgarh. On the same day, Miss Hamilton was discovered in a burnt condition in her bathroom. She was rushed to Beawar for treatment, but unfortunately, she succumbed to her injuries on 05.09.1978. A suicide note was discovered by another nurse, Miss. Nirupama Ganguli, Subsequently, Miss. Ganguli handed over the said suicide note to Mr. Durga Lal, the Upper Division Clerk, working at the Centre. Meanwhile, on 04.09.1998, the appellant came back from Cittorgarh and went to Beawar to collect the staff s pay. On 05.09.1978, when he came back he lodged a FIR with the police about Miss. Hamiltons death. Initially, the local police was of the opinion that appellant may have murdered Miss. Hamilton. Therefore, it registered a criminal case for offences under Sections 302, 376 and 120 B, IPC against the appellant. But eventually, after a through investigation not only by the local police, but also by the C.I.D. and the C.B.I. a final report, exonerating the appellant was submitted before the trial Court. The trial Court was pleased to accept the said Final Report (F.R.).

4. After a lapse of almost six years, on 29.05.1984, the appellant was suspended alongwith Mr. Druga Lal. Two months later, on 05.07.1984, a charge sheet was served upon the appellant wherein two charges were leveled against him: firstly, the appellant was in possession of the suicide note written by Miss. Hamilton. But, he neither reported about the same to the Chief Medical and Health

Officer, Beawar, nor informed the police about it. Secondly, that he forged letter dated 19.05.1977 and made false entries in the Dispatch Register. According to the charge sheet the appellant did these acts in overt to divert the investigation in the direction of suicide so as to save himself from suspicion of complicity in the alleged crime.

5. On 04.09.1989, the appellant replied to the said charge sheet. He contended that Mr. Durga Lal never gave the suicide note to him. In fact, it was recovered by the police from Mr. Durga Lal on 05.09.1978 itself . Therefore, there is no question of his withholding the suicide note from the police. Furthermore, he denied his sending any letter on 19.05.1977. In fact, he claimed that he had sent a letter on 20.05.1977 to the Chief Medical & Health Officer. Beawar. The record of the said letter is absolutely clear, intact and readily available in the office. Therefore, he denied both the charges leveled against him. Interestingly, on 10.07.1989, the respondents reinstated the appellant.

6. Having served the charge sheet and having received the reply, the department went into a deep slumber for eight long years. It was only in 1993 that the inquiry commenced against the appellant and Mr. Durga Lal. After the completion of