A departmental tribunal's findings in disciplinary proceedings must be based on acceptable evidence. Suspicion, inference, assumption, and presumption cannot take the place of proof by means of acceptable evidence.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. These two writ appeals are directed against the common order of Padmanabhan, J., in W.P. Nos. 2052 and 2053 of 1981. The parties in both the writ appeals are the same. The appellant in the writ appeals is the petitioner in the writ petitions. The respondents in the writ appeals are the respondents in the writ petitions. For the sake of convenience, we propose to refer to the parties by their application in the writ petitions.

2. The necessary facts have been summed up by Padmanabhan, J. and we can usefully refer to them also. The petitioner joined the State Government Service as a Town Planning Assistant in the year 1953. In 1971, he got appointed as Joint Director in the Directorate of Town and country-planning. He was posted as Project Director of the Pilot Research Project in Growth Centre at Salem. In November, 1973, he was transferred and posted as Joint Director in the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Madras. In October, 1975, the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Madras, brought to the notice of the Tamil Nadu Vigilance Commission that the petitioner, along with one Sabapathy, the then Deputy Director, and one Shanmugam, the then Draftsmen, Grade-2, had indulged in malpractices and corrupt activities. This led to the suspension of the petitioner and the two others with effect from 5th November, 1975. Thereafter, the second respondent, Commissioner of Disciplinary Proceedings, Madras, was asked to enquire into the charges against the petitioner and the two others. The second respondent conducted two enquiries, one in D.E. No. 9 of 1977 and the other D.E. No. 10 of 1977. D.E. No. 9 of 1977 related to the alleged irregularities committed jointly by all the three persons. D.E. No. 10 of 1977 dealt with the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner and Sabapathy. In D.E. No. 9 of 1977, a single charge containing eighty instances, was framed against the petitioner. The second respondent held that the charge framed against the petitioner and the two others stood proved and recommended the removal from service of the petitioner and Sabapathy and the dismissal of Shanmugam. D.E. No. 10 of 1977, the second respondent framed a single charge with nine instances. The second respondent found the charge proved and recommended that the petitioner and Sabapathy be removed from service. The State Government, the first respondent, accepted the findings of the second respondent. A provisional conclusion was reached to dismiss the petitioner and the others from service and a show-cause notice was issued separately to all the three individuals enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner submitted his further explanation. Thereafter, the first respondent consulted the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the third respondent, and the third respondent opined that all the three persons should be dismissed from service. Accordingly the first respondent passed the impugned orders dismissing the petitioner and the others from service. W.P. No. 2052 of 1981 was directed against G.O. Ms. No. 64, Housing and Urban Development Department, dated 2nd February, 1981, which was the outcome of the result of D.E. No. 9 of 1977. W.P. No. 2953/81 was directed against G.O. Ms. No. 65, Housing and Urban Development, dated 2nd February 1981, which resulted from D.E. No. 10 of 1977.

3. Very many contentions were raised before Padmanabhan, J., on behalf of the petitioner to set at naught the orders of dismissal passed against him. The learned Single Judge appraised the contentions and came to the conclusion that there were ample materials to sustain the charges levelled against the petitioner. In this view, the writ petitions were dismissed. That is how these writ appeals have come to be preferred by the petitioner.

4. Mr. S. Govind Swaminathan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the gravamen of the charges levelled against the petitioner related to corrupt motive and in the insta