IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1549 of 2008 YOGENDRA KUMAR SINGH Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS For the Petitioner : Mr. Raghavendra Sharan Pandey, Adv. For the State : Mr. A.A.G-(5) ----------- 2/ 25/01/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.1.2008 visiting him with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and that no salary was to be paid for the period of suspension. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally on certain allegations with regard to non-deposit of payment made by those who stayed in the lodge where he was the caretaker and subsequent cutting and interpolation in the registers/receipts. The appeal before the Commissioner on the earlier occasion was allowed on the ground that no second show cause notice was given to him before passing the order of punishment when after remand to the District Magistrate the fresh order has followed. Learned counsel for the petitioner from the enquiry report dated 15.1.2004 submits that the 2 petitioner has not been found to be guilty of any defalcation and, in fact, the money has been deposited. He submits that thereafter the enquiry officer has proceeded on assumptions and presumptions to arrive at a finding on conjectures and surmises that the possibility that the petitioner made interpolations in the register/receipts could not be ruled out. The District Magistrate does not interfere with the finding that the amount in question stood deposited in the coffers, but also proceeds on assumptions and presumptions that interpolations and back dating by the petitioner could not be ruled out and his intentions were suspect. Learned counsel for the State supported the impugned order to urge that in view of the conduct of the petitioner and the suspicion raised against him, in the nature of the punishment, this Court has not interfered. To sustain an order of punishment in pursuance of a departmental proceeding there has to be a specific finding of guilt. In absence of any specific finding of guilt, the law stands well settled that presumption shall not take the place of proof. No punishment can be awarded on presumptions and assumptions and a finding arrived on conjectures and 3 surmises. In (2009) 2 S.C.C. 570 (ROOP SINGH NEGI Versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS) it has been held at paragraph-23 in the relevant extract as follows:- “23…..As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.” The impugned order dated 3.1.2008 is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The application is allowed. Let the order be complied with within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)