JUDGMENT :- K. Chandru, J. Heard the arguments of Mr. S. Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Dhandapani, learned Special Government Pleader representing the respondents and have perused the records. 2. Aggrieved by the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal made in O.A. No. 10007 of 1998 dated 06. 2003 confirming the order of removal passed by the second respondent dated 08. 1998, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The petitioner was working as a Bill Collector and at the relevant time, he was working in the K.Abhishekapuram Town Panchayat. He was charge-sheeted by an order dated 14. 1995. There were five charges against the petitioner and in all the charges, he was accused of demanding and accepting bribes from the house owners at the time of renewal of House Tax. After accepting the bribe, he had corrected the counterfoils of the special notices issued against the house owners to make it appear as if it was that amount which was originally assessed for tax. 4. A charge memo was issued in terms of Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The Joint Director of the Town Panchayats was appointed to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner and the enquiry officer in his report found the petitioner guilty of all the charges. It was found that the petitioner had acted with bad motive while ordering the renewal notices and accepting the bribe was also a serious charge. Basing upon the said enquiry report and after finding him guilty, the second respondent removed him from service by an order dated 08. 1998. 5. Even though it is stated that an appeal was filed by the petitioner before the first respondent Government vide Appeal dated 19. 1998, he did not wait for its outcome and moved the Tribunal with an Original Application challenging the order of removal. The said Original Application taken on file as O.A. No. 10007 of 2003, was finally dismissed by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 06. 2003. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was indulging in corrupt practice and he had also committed fraud and cheated the Town Panchayat and had also misappropriated the amounts. It further held that the petitioner was not entitled for any consideration and there was no question of showing any indulgence. 6. However, Mr. 2003. The Tribunal held that the petitioner was indulging in corrupt practice and he had also committed fraud and cheated the Town Panchayat and had also misappropriated the amounts. It further held that the petitioner was not entitled for any consideration and there was no question of showing any indulgence. 6. However, Mr. S. Ilamvaludhi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal failed to note that the petitioner was only a Bill Collector and the same yardstick applied by the Tribunal in respect of a Junior Assistant cannot be made against him as he had no power of either reducing or enhancing the house tax. It was also argued that some of the irregularities related to the year 1989 and 1991 whereas the charge memo itself came to be issued only during 1995 and as such, there was enormous delay in charge-sheeting the petitioner. He also stated that the petitioner had put in 25 years of service and his removal after long years of service will cause great loss to him. 7. However, we are not persuaded to accept any one of the contentions raised by the petitioner. We are of the view that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved in a proper enquiry and the petitioner was given reasonable opportunities of defending himself. Even some of the house owners were examined in the departmental enquiry and they had deposed against the petitioner. Considering the gravity of the misconduct indulged by the petitioner, we are not persuaded to take a contrary view to that of the Tribunal. 8. Under the above circumstances, we are constrained to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed, however, with no order as to costs.