In your case, it appears that AO1 (Sub Registrar) has been named as the person demanding bribe in the charge sheet and also that cash amount of 66100 along with some other account slips as well as 400 personal cash seized from AO1.
It also appears that 2 private assistants were found to be in present in the office and cash 2800 seized from them and Rs103600 along with account slips seized from record room in the office.
So, whilst allegation against A01 seem to be a serious allegation, it appears that allegation against you is feeble and there is a fair chance for you to succeed given that no un authorised cash was found in your possession.
Primarily in all cases PC Act cases, The demand of illegal gratification by the accused is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act.
Judgments of Supreme Court in B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh, A. Subair v. State of Kerala and State of Kerala & Anr. v. C.P. Rao, after interpreting Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, has held that the demand of bribe money made by the accused in a corruption case is a sine qua non to punish the accused for the above said offences.
With reference to the monies recovered from record room the judgment of supreme court in M.K. Harshan v. State of Kerala will be of immense help in your case. In the case of MK HARSHAN, the tainted money was kept in the drawer of the accused who denied the same and said that it was put in the drawer without his knowledge, held as under:
a) It is in this context the courts have cautioned that as a rule of prudence, some corroboration is necessary. In all such type of cases of bribery, two aspects are important.
a1) Firstly, there must be a demand and secondly, there must be acceptance in the sense that the accused has obtained the illegal gratification.
a2) Mere demand by itself is not sufficient to establish the offence.
a3) Therefore, the other aspect, namely, acceptance is very important and when the accused has come forward with a plea that the currency notes were put in the drawer without his knowledge, then there must be clinching evidence to show that it was with the tacit approval of the accused that the money had been put in the drawer as an illegal gratification.’…” (emphasis supplied)
Also you will need to ensure that the evidences of FSL is challenged u/s 145 of Evidence act.
So in all likelihood, your grounds for discharge should be
a) No demand and
b) No seizure of monies from you and
c) Hence no Illegal gratification.
Hope this information is useful.