Page No.# 1/15 GAHC010028642024 2026:GAU-AS:2801 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/832/2024 CHANDRAMA DUTTA WIFE OF BINOD DUWARAH, RESIDENT OF HOUSE NO.-7, BYE LANE- JONAKI PATH, KAHILIPARA DAKSHINGAON ROAD, P.S. DISPUR, DISTRICT- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM VERSUS CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND 3 ORS A BODY CORPORATE, REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON HAVING ITS CENTRAL OFFICE AT 12TH FLOOR, CHANDER MUKHI NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI- 400021 AND FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE, ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT CENTRAL BANK BUILDING, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI- 781005, ASSAM 2:DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY-CUM-ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA 12TH FLOOR CHANDER MUKHI NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI- 400021 3:APPELLATE AUTHORITY-CUM-DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER 12TH FLOOR CHANDER MUKHI NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI- 400021 4:REGIONAL MANAGER CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA CENTRAL BANK BUILDING BHANGAGARH GUWAHATI- 781005 ASSA Page No.# 2/15 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. R BORAH, MR. R PHUKAN,MR. P TALUKDAR Advocate for the Respondent : SC, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : 19/02/2026 Heard Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. M. Sarma, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent authorities. 2. The challenge in the present proceedings is to an order dated 09.08.2023, passed by the disciplinary authority of the petitioner imposing upon the petitioner the penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits, i.e., pension and/or provident fund with gratuity. The petitioner has also challenged the order of the appellate authority dated 10.10.2023, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and thereby upholding the order of the disciplinary authority. 3. The petitioner while working as SWO-A at Lalganesh Branch Office of the Central Bank of India, was placed under arrest on 04.08.2018, in connection with Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No.300/2018 registered under Sections 120(B)/420/468 IPC read with Section 66(D) of the Information Technology Act. The petitioner with regard to the allegations so involved in the criminal proceedings instituted against her, was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding vide issuance of a memorandum/charge-sheet dated 20.04.2023. The petitioner submitted her written statement against the said memorandum of charge issued to her, however, the same not being found to be satisfactory, a disciplinary enquiry came to be ordered in the matter. The petitioner participated in the said departmental proceeding and the Presenting Officer presented one witness as management witness against the petitioner. Thereafter, the statement of the petitioner Page No.# 3/15 was recorded and accordingly, the said departmental enquiry was concluded. On the submission of the written briefs by the petitioner as well as the Presenting Officer, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to submit his enquiry report and therein, concluded that the petitioner was guilty of the allegations so leveled against her in the said memorandum of charge. A copy of the said enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner, herein and the petitioner submitted her representation against the same. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide a notice dated 31.07.2023, communicated to the petitioner his tentative findings in the matter along with the tentative penalty proposed to be imposed upon the petitioner, herein. The petitioner was required to submit her written submission in the matter and/or appear before the disciplinary authority on the date so specified, therein. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted her written submission against the tentative penalty that was so proposed to be imposed upon her by the notice dated 31.07.2023. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, vide order dated 09.08.2023, on considering the materials coming on record and holding the petitioner to be guilty of the charges leveled against her proceeded to impose the penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits upon her. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the imposition of the said penalty, preferred an appeal in the matter and the appellate authority on a consideration of the said appeal along with the contemporaneous records of the disciplinary proceeding instituted against the petitioner, proceeded vide order dated 10.10.2023 to reject the said appeal, upholding the penalty imposed upon the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceedings. 4. Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, has submitted that the departmental witness had projected that basing on a complaint of unauthorized transactions being carried out in the account of Ms. Mrinalini Baruah, an account holder of the Branch, a police case was registered in the matter and accordingly, police had visited the Branch Office for investigation. It was projected that during such investigation, police had questioned the petitioner, herein and she had confessed to have disclosed the account numbers of various account holders of the Branch to unknown persons. It was further projected that police on a search being made of the petitioner, particulars of various Page No.# 4/15 account holders were seized from her bag. Mr. Phukan, submits that it is on the basis of such report prepared in the matter by the Branch Manager of the Branch, wherein, the petitioner was so posted, that a proceeding came to be instituted against the petitioner. 5. Mr. R. Phukan, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the Memorandum of Charge issued against her, submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner, is to the effect that the petitioner had made unauthorized disclosure of confidential information pertaining to Mrs. Mrinalini Barua, customer of the bank, maintaining a savings bank account with the Lal Ganesh branch of the bank. It was further alleged that due to such disclosure of confidential information by the petitioner, unscrupulous persons had fraudulently withdrawn Rs.10.50 lakhs from the account of the said customer. The said act on the part of the petitioner was alleged to have resulted in the bank suffering financial loss to the tune of Rs.10.50 lakhs, since the bank had to compensate the account holder in pursuance to directions passed in the matter by the banking Ombudsman. 6. Mr. R. Phukan, submits that in the enquiry held in the matter, there was no material brought on record to establish that the petitioner had disclosed the confidential information pertaining to said Mrs. Mrinalini Buruah, customer of the bank. He submits that the evidence adduced by the management witness, during the enquiry, were of general nature and there was no specific material brought on record to demonstrate that the petitioner had disclosed information specifically pertaining to Mrs. Mrinalini Buruah, customer of the bank. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the enquiry held, the management witness no.1, who was the Branch Manager of the Lal Ganesh branch, Guwahati, at the relevant point of time, had brought on record contentions to the effect that the petitioner had confessed about her involvement in the crime before the police, when the police had visited the Bank for investigation in pursuance to an FIR lodged in the matter by said Mrinalini Buruah. He submits that although the management witness no.1, had contended that on a search being made by the police on the person of the petitioner, and her belongings, bank account nos. of various people of various branches were found. However, Mr. Phukan, submits that no particulars of the account nos. of the customers whose confidential information were Page No.# 5/15 found in the bag of the petitioner came to be disclosed. 7. Mr. R. Phukan, submits that a close perusal of the evidence adduced by MW-1 would reveal that the same was vague to the core of it and basing thereon, no conclusion with regard to the guilt of the petitioner in the matter could be deduced. He further submits that no police officer involved in the investigation of the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioner came to be examined although reports submitted by the police officer in the matter pertaining to the investigation of the case came to be relied upon by the Presenting Officer. He further submits that the contents of the police report, cannot be held to have been proved in absence of examination of the authority making the said report 8. Mr. R. Phukan, by referring to the enquiry report submitted in the matter, submits that the Enquiry Officer has placed much reliance on a communication dated 03-08-2018 issued by the MW-1 to the authorities of the Regional Office of the bank which was exhibited in the enquiry as MeX-4. He submits that a perusal of the said communication exhibited as MeX-4, would reveal that the same was a communication issued by the Branch Manager informing the Regional office of the bank that the police had confiscated the belongings of the petitioner including her bag and mobile phone and on checking of her bag, account numbers of various people of various branches were found. He submits that the said contention made in MeX-4 was not supported by adducing the seizure list that may have been prepared by the police in the matter. He submits that basing on the contention made in MeX-4, the charge framed against the petitioner cannot be held to have been established. Mr. Phukan further submits that the Enquiry Officer had thereafter placed reliance on MeX-7. He submits that MeX-7 is a communication dated 11-12-2018, issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Fatasil Ambari Police Station and a perusal of the same, it would reveal that therein, it was projected that during an investigation, one alleged accused, Smti. Chandrama Dutta, the petitioner, herein, was arrested on evidences being found against her as the person who provided account details of the complainant to the other accused. Mr. Phukan submits that while the said document was exhibited, the author of the said document was not examined. Accordingly, the contents of the said document Page No.# 6/15 cannot be held to have been established. Similarly, he submits that the MeX-8, a communication dated 15-11-2019 issued by the Officer-in-Charge, Fatasil Ambari Police Station, also does not establish the charge leveled against the petitioner. Mr. Phukan, submits that the Enquiry Officer proceeded to place a reliance on MeX-3, MeX-7 and MeX- 8 without having the contents thereof, proved by way of adducing the evidence of the police authorities who were connected with the investigation in the matter. He submits that, thereafter, the Enquiry Officer to draw support to his conclusions had relied upon the order dated 04-08-2018 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on the production of the petitioner before him after her arrest in connection with Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case No.300/2018. He submits that the said observations made by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class would be of no consequence, inasmuch as, the same only reflects the allegations leveled against the petitioner and cannot be held to be a material to prove the allegations leveled against the petitioner 9. In the above premises, Mr. R. Phukan, submits that the Enquiry Officer had miserably failed to draw his conclusions basing on reliable and cogent evidence and accordingly submits that the said conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer would not mandate an acceptance from this Court. 10. Mr. R. Phukan, has submitted that the Disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate authority having drawn their conclusions in the matter strictly basing upon the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer's findings being vitiated, the orders passed by the Disciplinary authority imposing the penalty upon the petitioner as well as the order of the Appellate authority upholding the order of the Disciplinary authority would mandate an interference from this Court. 11. In support of his submissions, Mr. R. Phukan, has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570. 12. Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner representing the respondent bank has submitted that the evidence adduced by MW-1 in the enquiry had clearly brought on Page No.# 7/15 record materials establishing the allegation leveled against the petitioner of having disclosed confidential information of the customers of the bank to unscrupulous persons leading to the commission of cyber offence. He submits that the confession by the petitioner being made in the presence of the MW-1, the same having been brought on record in the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer had not committed any error in taking the same into consideration while drawing his conclusions in the matter. He has further submitted that after the petitioner was arrested, the MW-1 who was the Branch Manager of the bank, in question, at the relevant point of time, had immediately informed the respondent authorities of the facts that had come to light during the investigation conducted by the police authorities at the branch before placing the petitioner under arrest. He submits that the said facts having come to the knowledge of the MW-1, she being present there, the same would mandate a consideration and accordingly the Enquiry Officer had not committed any error in drawing his conclusions basing on the statements made in the matter by the MW-1. 13. In the above premises, Mr. M. Sarma, submits that the allegations leveled against the petitioner being of very serious nature, the penalty as imposed upon her by the disciplinary authority is found to be a lenient one and accordingly the same would not mandate any interference from the Court. 14. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 15. The petitioner vide memorandum/charge-sheet dated 20.04.2023 was charged as follows: “ CHARGE Mrs. Chandrama Dutta has made unauthorized disclosure of confidential information pertaining to Mrs. Mrinalini Baruah, customer of the Bank, maintaining Savings bank account with Lalganesh Branch, Guwahati. Due to the disclosure of confidential information by Mrs. Chandrama Dutta, unscrupulous person(s) fraudulently withdrew-Rs.10.50 lakhs from the account (SB A/c No. 3427614585) of Mrs. Mrinalini Barüah. Page No.# 8/15 Such an act on her part caused financial loss to the Bank amounting to Rs. 10.50 lakhs since the Bank had to compensate the account holder in pursuance to Banking Ombudsman Pre- Award notice- Complaint No. 201819008000869 against Central Bank of India, Lalganesh branch lodged by Smt. Mrinalini Baruah. Thus, the above act of Mrs. Chandrama Dutta is a major misconduct which has not only tarnished the brand image of Bank, but also had caused financial loss to the Bank and thus, her said acts constitute 'Gross Misconduct’ as defined in Para 5(b) and 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen dated 10.04.2002.” 16. A perusal of the said charges framed against the petitioner would go to reveal that what has been alleged against the petitioner is that she had made unauthorized disclosure of confidential information pertaining to Mrs. Mrinalini Barauh, a customer of the Bank and due to such disclosure of confidential information by the petitioner, unscrupulous persons had fraudulently withdrawn around Rs.10.5 lakhs from the account of said Mrs. Mrinalini Barauh. It was further alleged that because of the act on the part of the petitioner, the bank had faced a financial loss in the matter, inasmuch as, it had to compensate said Ms. Mrinalini Barauh of the amount fraudulently withdrawn from her account. In the enquiry held, the allegations against the petitioner was sought to be established by the bank through the evidence adduced of one Ms. Subhana Rahman (MW-1), who was the branch manager of Lokhra Chariali branch at the relevant point of time when the petitioner was placed under arrest. 17. This Court has perused the evidences adduced by the MW-1 in the enquiry. The MW- 1 had produced the management exhibits including MeX-3(A), MeX-4, MeX-7, MeX-8, MeX- 9(A). The management witness no.1. during her deposition, after bringing on record the listed documents, had only reiterated the contentions as contained in the various listed exhibits. The MW-1 had also reiterated the contentions contained in MeX-4. The petitioner, herein, had cross examined the MW-1. The petitioner had specifically asked MW-1 as to whether she had a signed copy of list of the articles that were stated to have been confiscated from the possession of the petitioner. MW-1 had replied that there was no such list available. Thereafter, the petitioner had asked on the basis of which MW-1 had Page No.# 9/15 stated that certain articles were recovered from the possession of the petitioner. MW-1, to the said question answered that she along with one Mohim Borgohain were present, when the police personnel had made such recovery. She further stated that the same was also officially recorded in MeX-4. 18. The evidences coming on record having been noticed, this Court would now examine the Enquiry Officer's report. The Enquiry Officer, after noticing the materials coming on record, had proceeded to draw the following conclusions. “Findings On-going through the above submissions by MR and written argument submitted by CSE my observations are as under: Mex-4 is clearly states that CSE was interrogated by two officials of Crime Branch and during the confiscation of her belongings which includes her bar & mobile phone, details of various a/c holders of various branches was found. She also confessed that she had been given the account details of various customers to an unknown man. Since all the proceedings took place in presence of the than Branch Manager, Lokhra, (MW1), in my opinion her statement cannot be simply denied by CSE in point no.2 of her written argument. On page No.3 Para no.3 of CSE’s written argument she stated that management willfully and deliberately refrained from bringing Mr. Mohim Borgohain, as MW-2, in my opinion this statement is mere an allegation against the working of Management as MR provided the CSE with ample time to defend herself. If Mr. Mohim Borgohain was such an important witness or he has some information to submit, CSE could have produced her as her Defence Witness. So her submission cum allegation stands totally improper. CSE has stated in her written argument that ME-2A & 2B, ME-3, ME-6 A & B, ME-9, ME-10, ME-11 & Me-12 are not supporting the involvement of CSE in the case. In my opinion the said documents are produced by MR only to co-relate all this documents with MeX-4, Mex-7 & MeX-8, which are base documents provided by MR to prove the charge. As per judgment of Judicial Magistrate Class, Guwahati, dated 04.08.2018 in the Fatasil Ambari P.S. case no.300/18, states that, "I have perused the ground of arrest enumerated in the forwarding report. It appears that the arrested accused person namely Anup Das with a criminal conspiracy introduced the prime accused Biswajit Dhar to the arrested accused woman namely Chandrama Dutta, SWO-A and transferred money from the complainant account and good relation with said prime accused and Bank Official. The arrested accused women namely Smti. Chandrama Dutta with a criminal conspiracy provided the account details of complainant to the arrested accused namely Anup Das and prime accused Biswajit Dhar who is still absconding evading police arrest. Hence, I am of the considered opinion that the arrest of the accused person was justified." which has been provided by CSE herself with her written arguments, clear depicts the involvement of the CSE in the Case. Page No.# 10/15 The CSE in her written argument states that no seizer list related to her was found in the case but as per Order dated 27.06.2019 by Mr. Gautam Daimari, LL.M. AJS, Special Judicial Magistrate, Assam, Guwahati, in the Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case no.300/18 indicated the prayer from the CSE to Court to get her two mobile viz Vivo V9 & Vivo V5 respectively along with two sim which were seized by police in connection with this case and as per Order dated 12.07.2019 in the Fatasil Ambari P.S. Case no.300/18, I/O was directed to give interim zimma of the alleged Mobile phone. This clearly contradicted the argument made by CSE. In my opinion, if no seizing was done then why the mobile demanded by CSE and released by Court. As such, the argument made by CSE stands improper. In the light of the above observations, I do find the involvement of CSE, Mrs. Chandrama Dutta (Employee No-091515) SWO-A of Lalganesh Branch under Guwahati Regional Office in the Case of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information pertaining to Mrs. Malini Baruah, customer of bank, maintaining Saving Bank account with Lal Ganesh Branch, Guwahati. Due to disclosure of confidential information by Chandrama Dutta, unscrupulous person(s) fraudulently withdrew Rs. 10.50 lacs from the account of Mrs. Mrinalini Baruah SB A/c No-3427614585).” 19. A perusal of the said conclusions drawn by the Enquiry Officer, reveals that the Enquiry Officer at the outset had considered MeX-4. Thereafter, the other documents were so considered, along with the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class on the petitioner being produced before the Court after her arrest. The Enquiry Officer thereafter proceeded to notice that the petitioner had contended in her written argument that no seizure list related to her was found in the case. The said contention of the petitioner was found to be erroneous, inasmuch as, vide order dated 27-06-2019, the learned Trial Court had accepted the prayer of the petitioner for granting Zimma of two mobile phones along with two SIM cards seized from her by the police in connection with the said case. Accordingly, interim zimma of the same was granted to the petitioner vide order dated 12- 07-2019. By noticing the said position, the Enquiry Officer held that the position contradicted the stand made by the petitioner that no seizure was made from her. 20. It is only by drawing the above conclusion that the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner's involvement in disclosure of confidential information pertaining to Mrs. Mrinalini Baruah, customer of the bank. This Court has carefully perused the Enquiry Report and finds that there is no evidence brought on record, linking the petitioner with disclosure of information pertaining to said Mrinalini Burua in any manner. What has been brought on record is the seizure of confidential information of certain bank customers. However, there is no disclosure at least of the account numbers of the persons whose confidential information were purportedly seized by the police authorities. Page No.# 11/15 21. The search made on the person of the petitioner and her belongings and the materials seized, thereafter has been made the basis for holding the petitioner guilty of the charge leveled against her, however the seizure list prepared was not exhibited. Further, the police authorities who had made such seizure was also not examined. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) had categorically laid down that mere production of a document would not also tantamount to the proof of the contents thereof. 22. The conclusions drawn by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this connection being relevant is extracted herein below. “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges leveled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 15. We have noticed hereinbefore that the only basic evidence whereupon reliance has been placed by the enquiry officer was the purported confession made by the appellant before the police. According to the appellant, he was forced to sign on the said confession, as he was tortured in the police station. The appellant being an employee of the Bank, the said confession should have been proved. Some evidence should have been brought on record to show that he had indulged in stealing the bank draft book. Admittedly, there was no direct evidence. Even there was no indirect evidence. The tenor of the report demonstrates that the enquiry officer had made up his mind to find him guilty as otherwise he would not have proceeded on the basis that the offence was committed in such a manner that no evidence was left. Page No.# 12/15 ……………………………………………………………………….. ……………………………………………………………………….. …………………………………………………………………………… 19. The judgment and decree passed against the respondent in Narinder Mohan Arya case had attained finality. In the said suit, the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding was considered, the same was held to have been based on no evidence. The appellant therein in the aforementioned situation filed a writ petition questioning the validity of the disciplinary proceeding, the same was dismissed. This Court held that when a crucial finding like forgery was arrived at on an evidence which is non est in the eye of the law, the civil court would have jurisdiction to interfere in the matter. This Court emphasized that a finding can be arrived at by the enquiry officer if there is some evidence on record. It was furthermore found that the order of the appellate authority suffered from non-application of mind. 21. Yet again in M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India this Court held: (SCC p. 95, para 25) 23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. 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. "25. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analyzing the documents must arrive at a Page No.# 13/15 conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration any irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with." 23. The said decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court applies with all force to the facts of the present case. This Court on a close examination of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, in his Enquiry Report, finds that the said findings are not supported by any evidence adduced in the matter against the petitioner connecting her to the charge framed against her in the Memorandum of Charge, issued to her. 24. This Court, in view of the materials coming on record, is of the considered view that the present case is a case of no evidence, inasmuch as, the contents of the documents issued by the investigation authorities were never proved by examining the authors issuing the said documents. Further the seizure purportedly made from the petitioner was also not established. The evidences adduced by MW-1 in the considered view of this Court has no nexus with the charges leveled against the petitioner and the same even remotely does not connect the petitioner with the said charges. The Enquiry Officer could not have based his findings on mere ipse dixit on his part. Suspicion, however, high cannot be a substitute of legal proof. This Court while drawing the said conclusions has not lose sight of the fact that the charges in the Departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e beyond reasonable doubt, but this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the Enquiry Officer performs a quasi judicial function and he only upon analysis of the legal evidences coming on record must arrive at the conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charge against the petitioner. It is settled position of law that while drawing such conclusion, the Enquiry Officer cannot take into consideration any irrelevant facts. 25. This Court at this stage further notices for establishing the charge against the Page No.# 14/15 petitioner, the Enquiry Officer had shifted the burden on the petitioner to produce the seizure list, which admittedly was a requirement to be so done through the Management witness, which the Management apparently failed to do. In the present case from the material coming on record, this Court finds that the enquiry Officer had only a suspicion with regard to the involvement of the petitioner with the charge leveled against her, however there was no material brought on record to connect her to the said charge even by application of the principles of preponderance of probability. 26. In view of the above conclusions drawn by this Court, this Court is of the considered view that the order of penalty issued vide order dated 09.08.2023 cannot be sustained and the same, along with the order passed by the Appellate authority is set aside. The respondent authorities would now compute the salaries receivable by the petitioner after she was imposed with the penalty and release the same to her after deducting pension received by the petitioner, if any. The petitioner shall also within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of re-instatement in her services refund the pensionary benefits received by her, if any, other than the monthly pension. 27. The amounts receivable by the petitioner in terms of the present order be released to the petitioner in terms of the directions passed, hereinabove, within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 28. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Page No.# 15/15 Comparing Assistant