delinquent, ie., the petitioner, they have turned hostile, the credibility of the evidence they recorded before the Enquiry Officer is questionable and therefore, that cannot override the number of other witnesses, who have recorded their evidence in favour of the prosecution and against the delinquent and therefore, based on the majority witnesses, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that, the charge framed against the petitioner was proved and accordingly, both the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority have come to the right conclusion that, for such a violation or lapse on the part of the petitioner, which was thereafter confirmed by the appellate authority also on the appeal filed by the petitioner, imposing the maximum punishment of removal from service. Therefore, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that, the impugned orders are fully justifiable and sustainable as those orders have been passed based on the evidences recorded by the Enquiry Officer and in this regard, no grievance can be projected by the petitioner that, there was no opportunity was given to him. He would further submit that, in disciplinary proceedings, since the degree of proof is only preponderance of probabilities and in view of the strength of evidence ie., 16 out of 18 evidences recorded in favour of the prosecution that would be more than sufficient to come to a safe conclusion that the charge framed against the petitioner has been proved and hence the orders are sustainable, he contended.
