Nothing prevented the respondents in implicating the petitioner, if he is really involved in the crime along with accused 1 to 5. But, such course of action was not adopted and they just wanted to call him a thief and get rid of him by way of relying upon hearsay evidence. In a departmental proceeding, the hearsay evidence also can be taken into consideration, provided there is some substantial record or oral evidence available. The hearsay and indirect evidence alone cannot be relied upon, in the absence of any documentary or oral evidence in that regard. The hearsay evidence can be taken into consideration for the purpose of filling up certain missing links here and there, but that itself does not mean just by relying upon the hearsay evidence, a person can be thrown out of employment and call him ‘a thief’ along with some criminals. However, in the first report purported to have been submitted by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Bezawada, dt 21.10.1989 by PCI, Guntur reference to the fact of revelation of the accused 1 to 5 that the petitioner, D. Bhaskar Rao had participated with them in the theft of rails committed for the first time was mentioned and some indirect evidence, such as, Mahazar report dated 3-7-1989 and Message dated 27-2-1989 were marked in the departmental enquiry. But, they have no consequence whatsoever and they do not lead us anywhere. Further, some documents were enclosed to the said report dated 21.10.1989 such as, statements of accused 1 to 5 etc., but those documents were also not marked during the
