petitioner. He contended that after petitioner denied the signature, the enquiry officer compared the signatures on pro note with the signatures of the petitioner and held that there were no dissimilarities between two signatures. He contends that assuming everything to be true, then at the most it could establish a financial transaction between the complainant and the petitioner. He contends that except the pro note, there was nothing to establish that the complainant had paid Rs.40,000/and that the petitioner had received it. Therefore, he contends that the report of the enquiry is based on assumptions and not based on reasonable evidence. He contends that the evidence adduced in a domestic enquiry must co-relate with the articles of charge. He contends that, if the allegation that petitioner had received money to ensure early disposal of cases of Sri R. G. G. Naidu, the same had to be proved. He contends that since that fact was not proved, the enquiry officer could not have submitted his report claiming that the charge against the petitioner was partly proved. Even otherwise, he contends that, the charge did not attract a drastic punishment such as removal from service. He further submits that, the petitioner has now expired and has left behind two unmarried daughters and his widow. Therefore, he prays that this Court may take a
