Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has stated that he had joined in service in the year, 1974 and he has an unblemished record of service of more than 20 years and he belongs to Kurumbas community, which is a backward class. At the time of the filing of the original application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, he was working as a Field Assistant in the office of the third respondent. Due to ill-will against the petitioner one N. Shanmugam, who was then a Junior Engineer and the immediate superior of the petitioner, had ill-treated the petitioner by asking him to do jobs which were not officially assigned to the petitioner. While so, the petitioner was shocked to receive a memo, dated 8. 1994, from the first respondent. It was alleged that six office records were handed over to the petitioner, on 27. 1994, by the Junior Engineer, namely, N. Shanmugam, the second respondent herein, to be brought to the office of the second respondent from the Head office, Vellore. Since the records were not brought by the petitioner to the office of the second respondent, a charge memo had been issued asking the petitioner to submit his explanation. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner had sent a reply, on 18. 1994, to the first respondent, stating that the second respondent had never given him any of the office records as alleged in the charge memo and that the petitioner has been attending the office of the second respondent, regularly. In fact, the second respondent has been refusing to allow the petitioner to sign the attendance register. 2. It has been further stated that after receiving the explanation from the petitioner, the first respondent, had issued a charge memo, dated 211. 1994, containing three charges, under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Subordinate Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. The first respondent had come to the conclusion that the records had been given to the petitioner, based on the information from third person. There is no acknowledgment from the petitioner for having received the records. Further, it is not the duty of the petitioner to carry the office records from the first respondents office to the office of the second respondent. It is only the second respondent who is responsible for the said records. There is no acknowledgment from the petitioner for having received the records. Further, it is not the duty of the petitioner to carry the office records from the first respondents office to the office of the second respondent. It is only the second respondent who is responsible for the said records. However, based on the certain unreliable information, the first respondent had passed the order, dated 12. 1995, imposing on the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, without cumulative effect. 3. The petitioner has further stated that after passing of the said order, dated 12. 1995, imposing the punishment on the petitioner, the first respondent had issued a show cause memo, dated 14. 1995, asking the petitioner to show cause as to why an amount of Rs.225/- should not be recovered from the petitioner, being the value of the records missing. Thereafter, the petitioner had sent a representation, dated 16. 1995, accepting that the records said to be missing were never handed over to him and that it was not his duty to carry the records to the office of the second respondent. However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent had issued the second punishment order, dated 19. 1995, ordering the recovery of Rs.225/- from the salary of the petitioner. 4. In the reply affidavit filed by the first respondent, the allegations made by the petitioner had been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner, being the subordinate staff of the Junior Engineer, had been entrusted with the work of carrying the concerned records, in accordance with the existing rules and procedures. The petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for not having handed over the section office records at the Section Office at Tirupattur. Since the records had been lost, an order had been passed to recover the monetary loss caused by the petitioner due to his careless act. Since both the charges are different in nature, two separate orders had been passed by the first respondent. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner are devoid of merits are liable to be rejected in limine. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the first respondent had issued the charge memo, dated 211. 1994, without having sufficient information. The charge against the petitioner was that he had lost the records entrusted to him. Therefore, the contentions raised by the petitioner are devoid of merits are liable to be rejected in limine. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the first respondent had issued the charge memo, dated 211. 1994, without having sufficient information. The charge against the petitioner was that he had lost the records entrusted to him. However, there was no evidence to show that such entrustment had taken place. Further, it was not the duty of the petitioner to carry the office records from the office of the first respondent to be handed over at the office of the second respondent. There was no formal enquiry against the petitioner and no opportunity had been given to him to put forth his case. Even though the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation, with regard to the charges framed against the petitioner, the first respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 12. 1995, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year without cumulative effect, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The first respondent had also issued an order, dated 19. 1995, ordering the recovery of Rs.225/-from the salary of the petitioner for the loss alleged to have been caused by the petitioner, due to the loss of the office records. Both the orders issued by the first respondent are without any basis, arbitrary and they are not supported by sufficient evidence. 6. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents had submitted that the impugned order passed by the first respondent, on 12. 1995, imposing on the petitioner the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year, without cumulative effect and the order, dated 19. 1995, for the recovery of Rs.225/-from the salary of the petitioner, for the loss caused by him, are in accordance with law. The said orders had been issued only after a proper enquiry had been conducted with regard to the loss of the records. There was sufficient evidence to show that the office records were entrusted to the petitioner to be handed over to the Section Office at Tirupattur, after the auditing of the records at Vellore, on 27. 1994. In such circumstances, the petitioner is liable for the loss of the records and for the irresponsible manner in which he had acted. 7. There was sufficient evidence to show that the office records were entrusted to the petitioner to be handed over to the Section Office at Tirupattur, after the auditing of the records at Vellore, on 27. 1994. In such circumstances, the petitioner is liable for the loss of the records and for the irresponsible manner in which he had acted. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available before this Court, it is clear that the important ingredient of entrustment of the records with the petitioner had not been sufficiently proved. 8. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents has not been in a position to show that the records in question had been handed over to the petitioner to be carried to the Section Office at Tirupattur after they were audited in Vellore, on 27. 1994. Even though it has been stated that there was sufficient oral evidence from the other staff members employed in the office of the respondents, there is nothing to show that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to defend himself against the charges. Unless it could be clearly shown that the petitioner was entrusted with the records, which were said to be lost, the petitioner cannot be imposed with any punishment for the alleged lapses said to have been committed by him. Further, there cannot be any recovery against the petitioner for such lapses, which had not been sufficiently proved. It is also seen that the respondents had not shown that the petitioner was responsible for the records said to have been lost, in accordance with the officially allotted duties. In the absence of the ingredients necessary to burden the petitioner with the liability, the impugned orders passed by the first respondent, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 9. In such view of the matter, the impugned order of the first respondent No.Aa.3.3012/94, dated 12. 1995, is set aside. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs.