Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of the statement of one Balram Bauri, who was also a constable, the aforesaid charges were framed against the petitioner. He further submits that in departmental proceeding, said Balram Bauri has been examined, who has stated before the enquiry officer that on coercion of the authority that if he will not give the statement as per their wishes, he will be sent back to his home, his statement was recorded by the authority concerned. He further stated that two witnesses were also examined in the departmental proceeding and they have not supported the involvement of the petitioner and rest two witnesses, who were examined before the enquiry officer, have stated that they came to know about the incident from some other sources and have also stated that from newspaper report, they came to know about the incident. On the basis of this, Mr. Kumar Vaibhav submits that the charges not having been proved, the enquiry report is perverse, as no prudent person can come to such a conclusion after considering the evidence of the aforesaid witness. He further submits that such a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt, as it brings civil and criminal consequence upon the employee concerned, who would be liable to be prosecuted and would also be liable to suffer severest penalty awardable in such case. Therefore, such a grave charge of quasi-crimial nature was required to be proved beyond any shadow of doubt and to the hilt. It cannot be proved on mere probabilities. To substantiate his arguments, he has relied on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
