The charge of corruption requires to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt, and it cannot be proved on mere probabilities. The Authorities in a matter of disciplinary proceeding must consider the defence taken by the delinquent and meet out the same by giving reasons why the said defence is not acceptable.

ORDER :

Sanjay Dwivedi, J.

1. Since learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter finally in physical hearing, therefore, it is heard finally.

2. By the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the orders dated 20.04.2015 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No. 3/Sub Divisional Officer, Harda being a Disciplinary Authority, whereby a penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner has been inflicted; the order dated 28.09.2016 (Annexure-P/2) passed by respondent No. 2/Collector, District Harda, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against her order of dismissal, has been rejected by the Appellate Authority by affirming the order passed by respondent No. 3/Sub Divisional Officer, Harda and further the order dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure-P/3) passed by the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad, whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner invoking Rule 29 of the Madhya Pradesh (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 (in short the 'Rules, 1966') against the order of respondent No. 2/Collector, District Harda has also been rejected.

3. The relevant facts briefly stated to appreciate the rival legal contentions on behalf of the parties are that while serving as a Patwari in District Harda, the petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated 20.05.2014 (Annexure-P/4) asking her for an explanation regarding the charges of misconduct and irregularities alleged to have been committed by her. The petitioner was also placed under suspension vide order dated 09.06.2014 (Annexure-P/5). Thereafter, a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner on 23.05.2014 (Annexure-P/6), despite that the respondents/Authorities served the petitioner with a charge-sheet dated 22.07.2014 (Annexure-P/7) levelling as many as eight charges against her. However, a reply to the charge-sheet was also filed by the petitioner, but being dissatisfied with the same, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, a regular departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer on 16.03.2015 (Annexure-P/9) submitted its report holding the petitioner guilty of misconduct as all the charges levelled against her were found proved.

The Disciplinary Authority, in turn, passed an order on 20.04.2015 (Annexure-P/1), whereby the punishment of removal from service had been inflicted upon the petitioner. Thereafter, an appeal under Rule 27 of the Rules, 1966 was preferred by the petitioner before the Collector, District Harda and the Appellate Authority vide its order dated 28.09.2016 (Annexure-P/2) rejected the same and thereafter, a review application had also been preferred against the order of the Collector, District Harda which was also dismissed by the Commissioner, Narmadapuram Division, Hoshangabad on 11.09.2017 (Annexure-P/3). Hence, this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders have been assailed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that despite denying the charges in toto, the Enquiry Officer has erroneously held that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been found proved. He submits that the observation made by the Enquiry Officer was not based upon the evidence produced by the prosecution, on the contrary, the same was based upon the whims and fancies. He submits that the Enquiry Officer has observed that the charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved on the basis of conjectures and surmises which according to him is not permissible in the eyes of law taking the view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR SC 1964 364 [Union of India Vs. H.C. Goel]. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that from perusal of the enquiry report, it can easily be gathered that the said report cannot be considered to be an enquiry report in the eyes of law for the reason that the finding g