further submit that the learned Single Judge had held that the charges could not be said to have been proved as it was only the respondents who had been proceeded with, whereas, it has been admitted by the witnesses that there are other persons who are also in charge of Gate-A and that they have not been proceeded with, which had violated the Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also in violation of principles of natural justice. But, however, the learned Single Judge taking into account that there has been negligence on the part of the respondents, instead of remitting the matter for fresh enquiry, had gone ahead in modifying the punishment into reduction of time scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect. He would submit that the learned Single Judge exercising the power of judical review ought not to have reappreciated the evidence. He would submit that it has been the specific case of the Department, which has also been supported by the witnesses that it was only the respondent in the respective appeals who were incharge of the cabin from which the money had been recovered. The respondents have not disproved the said fact and therefore, it was only the respondents who would be liable to answer or to explain as to how the money was in the cabin. This aspect had
