Penal Codc. Aftcr thorough invcstigation, thc said case!"'as referrcd as 'false' by the Police and the complaintwas closed. But, the authority concerned without taking the said factum into consideration has passed the impugned order imposing thc penalty of reduction of minimum pay scale in the existing scale of pay for a period of two years with cumulative effect onthe basis of the complaint given by his wife on theverysame allegation. lrarned counsel has further stated thatwithout there being any independent evidence, the authority concerncd on one hand has agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Ofticer in respect oI the findings given in respect of charge No. 1, but on the other in respect of the secoud charge, the evidence of the wife and children was disbelieved by the disciplinary authority and did not agree with the findings given by the Enquiry Ofhcer in this regard. l,earned counsel for the petitioner has stated that without there being any iota of evidencc by any thirdparty independent witness or any documents to prove the charges levelled against the petitioner herein, the question of imposing the above said punishment does not arise. Further, the learned counsel has contended that there is absolutely no nexus with the charges levelled against the petitioner vis-d-vis to the duties discharged by the petitioner. Once the complaint filed by the wife of the petitioner was closed as false by the police after thorough investigation, the disciplinary authoriW cannot take a
