Judgment :- This writ petition has come up to this Court by way of transfer of O.A.No.3253 of 2003 on the file of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai on its abolition. The petitioner challenged the order of the second respondent dated 06.02.2003, in and by which, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of compulsory retirement. 2. The petitioner was directly recruited as Sub-Inspector of Police in the year 1976. At the relevant point of time, he was in Thuckalay circle, where he joined duty on 210. 1989. A charge-memo in D.E.No.1/94 dated 24.03.1994 was served on him on 03.05.1994. The charge alleged against the petitioner reads as under:- “While you (Accused Officer) were working as Inspector of Police, Thuckalay Circle, Kanyakumari District, actuated by dishonest intention and with ulterior motive, abusing your official position, on 11. 90 at or about 12.30 hours, you (Accused Officer) had met Thiru. Narendra Pal Singh, I.P.S. Superintendent of Police, Kanyakumari District at Nagercoil at his Camp Office at Puthukudiyiruppu and informed him that the licenced arrack shop owners would loose heavily if they were not permitted to sell I.D.arrack also in their Government arrack shops and that they should be shown mercy and, at that time, you had handed over to Thiru. Narendra Pal Singh, I.P.S. a khaki coloured cover which was found to contain Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) and thus you had attempted to induce him to accept the said amount as gratification other than legal remuneration as motive for extending favour and leniency to the arrack shop owners as requested by you. Thereby you (Accused Officer) had committed grave official misconduct and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and had exhibited conduct unbecoming of a member of Police Force.” 3. The charges were framed by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings in Departmental Enquiry No.1/94. A detailed enquiry was held in which the petitioner participated. The Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings submitted his findings on 06.05.2002. The Tribunal found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was furnished to the petitioner on 110. 2002 and the petitioner submitted his reply to the findings on 11.02.2002. A detailed enquiry was held in which the petitioner participated. The Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings submitted his findings on 06.05.2002. The Tribunal found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. The findings of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings was furnished to the petitioner on 110. 2002 and the petitioner submitted his reply to the findings on 11.02.2002. The second respondent Disciplinary Authority after considering the findings as well as the petitioners reply by the order impugned herein dated 06.02.2003, accepted the findings and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement taking into account the gravity of misconduct. It is as against the said order, the petitioner has come forward with this writ petition. 4. Mr. M. Kalyanasundram, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner raised as many as four contentions while assailing the order impugned in this writ petition. In the first place, he contended that while the charge against the petitioner is that he attempted to bribe a superior office viz., Superintendent of Police by offering a sum of Rs.5,000/- in a cover marked as M.Os. 1 to 3, the cover and the rupee notes were not sent for chemical analysis to ascertain whether it contained the finger prints of the petitioner. It was then contended that the concerned Superintendent of Police was examined as P.W.10, who did not identify those M.Os. 1 to 3. The third contention was that though independent witnesses were present, they were not examined in the enquiry as Mahazar witnesses. Lastly, it was contended that the contention of the petitioner that the Superintendent of Police had a grudge against the petitioner, as the petitioner was not paid the special reward awarded to him about which he made a complaint. 5. While elaborating on the submissions, the learned senior counsel submitted that the Disciplinary Tribunal should have sent the material objects for chemical analysis, in which event, the outcome of the test would have revealed whether the petitioner was involved in the misconduct of attempted bribery. According to the learned senior counsel, such a vital exercise was not carried out in the enquiry though there was oral request made on behalf of the petitioner. According to the learned senior counsel, such a vital exercise was not carried out in the enquiry though there was oral request made on behalf of the petitioner. The learned senior counsel after referring to the summary of the evidence of P.W.10, submitted that in no part of his evidence, he identified the M.Os.1 to 3 and that such a lapse would seriously impinge upon the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He further contended that the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 8 was not reliable, in as much as, they were subordinate officials of P.W.10 and therefore they would not have come out with the truth. By relying upon Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, contention was raised that while making a search, the procedure prescribed in the said provision ought to have been followed by getting the signature of the independent witnesses who were present to support the seizure of M.Os. 1 to 3. The learned senior counsel placed reliance on the following decisions viz., .(i) AIR 1979 SC 3002 (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Virendra Kumar J.Patel) .(ii) JT 1998 1 SC 319 (Ministry of Finance & Anr. Vs. S.B. Ramesh) (iii) AIR 1979 SC 1708 (Jaspal Singh Vs. State of Punjab) in support of his contentions. With regard to the contention that material objects should have been sent for chemical analysis, reliance was placed upon .(i) 1999 8 SCC 582 (Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others) .(ii) 2004 5 CTC 202 (Erajan, P. Vs. The Deputy Inspector of Police) and contented that non-examination of the independent witnesses would vitiate the enquiry. 6. As against the above submissions, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st and 2nd respondents would contend that this case is not a case by way of a trap, which is normally done in corruption cases where phenolphthalein test used to be conducted to confirm the involvement of a corrupt official to prove the receipt of bribe. Since the petitioner was proceeded against by way of a Disciplinary Action, what is required is only preponderance of probability and not proof to the hilt and therefore when there was enough material evidence to support the charge levelled against the petitioner, the failure to send the material objects for chemical analysis would not vitiate the impugned proceedings. 7. Since the petitioner was proceeded against by way of a Disciplinary Action, what is required is only preponderance of probability and not proof to the hilt and therefore when there was enough material evidence to support the charge levelled against the petitioner, the failure to send the material objects for chemical analysis would not vitiate the impugned proceedings. 7. The learned Government Advocate further contended that when the petitioner did not ask for chemical analysis test before the Enquiring Authority, he cannot raise it as a ground of attack at this stage. He also contended that the evidence of independent witnesses P.Ws.6 and 9 sufficiently proved the allegation levelled against the petitioner and therefore with the supporting evidence of the Superintendent of Police P.W.10, to whom the bribe was offered by the petitioner, the charge levelled against the petitioner was established. The learned Government Advocate also contended that M.Os. 1 to 3 were identified by P.W.1, the Investigating Officer to whom those material objects were handed over by P.W.10 after his complaint. Therefore, mere non-identification by P.W.10 by itself does not vitiate the proceedings. As far as the non-examination of independent witnesses viz. P.Ws.6 and 9 as Mahazar witnesses, the learned Government Advocate contended that since they were examined to state as to what they witnessed, they could not have been examined as Mahazar witnesses for recovery of material objects with reference to which the said witnesses had no involvement. 8. Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate, I proceed to consider each and everyone of the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 9. The first contention of the petitioner was that the M.Os were not sent for chemical analysis in order to find out whether the Rupee notes which were offered as bribe amount to the Superintendent of Police did have the finger prints of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner did not make any attempt before the Enquiring Authority to send those materials for chemical analysis. In this context, the stand of the learned Government Advocate that it is not a trap case where the phenolphthalein test used to be conducted bears significance. 10. The reliance placed upon by the learned senior counsel on Chapter XXXVI of the book viz. In this context, the stand of the learned Government Advocate that it is not a trap case where the phenolphthalein test used to be conducted bears significance. 10. The reliance placed upon by the learned senior counsel on Chapter XXXVI of the book viz. Fields Expert Evidence and Opinions of Third Person, states as to on what materials finger prints can be traced as set out in paragraph 21 of the said chapter at page 642, which states as under: “21..... Each friction ridge contains tiny pores – actually sweat ducts – which secrete a mixture of sebum sodium chloride and water, which forms a film over the finger or hand. Sebum is fatty substance from the sebaceous gland. When a non-porous object is touched or gripped with sufficient pressure, this film is transferred to the object in the exact pattern of the friction ridges. The film residue is called a latent finger-print and may be deposited on metal, glass, wood, finished leather, plastic, soap, cheese, butter, china, apples, paper and almost any non-porous substance. The probability of finding a usable print on cloth is extremely low, although legible prints have been discovered on sheets, pillow cases and shirts that have been heavily sized and starched. Prints have also been found on the sticky side of adhesive and Scotch tap.....” Therefore, going by the above experts view, possibility of tracing the finger prints from a sheet of paper, therefore it may be possible to ascertain the said fact from the rupee notes as well as the cover in which such notes were kept when it was offered by the petitioner to the Superintendent of Police P.W.10. But the question is whether such a detailed exercise was necessary at all in the case on hand? 11. The sum and substances of the charge against the petitioner was that on a special drive P.W.10 as Superintendent of Police wanted to eradicate the illicit liquor business prevailing in the area within his jurisdiction. On hearing that such illicit liquor business was wide spread in the particular area falling within the jurisdiction of the petitioner, the petitioner was summoned by him to find out what measures he had taken to check the said business. On hearing that such illicit liquor business was wide spread in the particular area falling within the jurisdiction of the petitioner, the petitioner was summoned by him to find out what measures he had taken to check the said business. The petitioner in his attempt to support the illicit arrack dealers alleged to have handed over a cover containing a sum of Rs.5,000/- to the Superintendent of Police by way of bribe money which was an unbecoming conduct of a police officer. To establish the said fact, the Disciplinary Authority relied upon the version of the Superintendent of Police P.W.10, M.Os.1 to 3 and other persons who were present in the Camp Office of P.W.10 and who witnessed the incident of the petitioner running away from the Camp Office after noticing the dreadful reaction of P.W.10. Among the said witnesses, two were outsiders viz., P.Ws.6 & 9. P.W.6 is stated to be a former public prosecutor and P.W.9 is an advocate clerk. 12. It was not the case of the petitioner that he specifically wanted the Enquiry Officer to send the material objects for chemical analysis, in the course of the enquiry and that it was rejected by the Enquiry Officer. There is no reference to the said claim in any of the documents of the disciplinary proceedings. It is true that the Enquiry Officer dealt with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner about the failure to send the material objects for chemical analysis, in order to ascertain the fingerprints contained therein. While dealing with the said contention, the enquiring authority stated that the said material objects would have contained the fingerprints of P.W.10, who received the cover from the petitioner and who also counted the money found inside. The enquiring authority therefore stated that sending the material objects for chemical analysis would not have helped the petitioner. 13. Leaving aside the said findings of the Enquiring Authority, the moot question for consideration is whether there was any such necessity for the Enquiring Authority to send the material objects for chemical analysis while conducting the proceedings against the petitioner. As stated earlier, till the recording of evidence was concluded, the petitioner did not make any specific request for sending the material objects for chemical analysis. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain about the non-sending of the material objects for chemical analysis. As stated earlier, till the recording of evidence was concluded, the petitioner did not make any specific request for sending the material objects for chemical analysis. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be heard to complain about the non-sending of the material objects for chemical analysis. In such circumstances, when a contention was raised after the conclusion of the proceedings, the petitioner was not justified at all in raising the plea which was not a point for consideration at the time when the witnesses specifically referred to the material objects while deposing before the Enquiring Authority. 14. In any event, in the domestic enquiry when there was enough legal evidence to support the version of P.W.10, that the petitioner gave a khaki cover to him and that when he opened it mistaking it for a petition, he found Rupee notes to the value of Rs.5,000/-. It was supported by other witnesses who witnessed handing over of the said cover by the petitioner to P.W.10 and other facts narrated by him. Therefore, mere failure to send the said material objects for chemical analysis by itself would not have vitiated the findings of the enquiry officer. I therefore, do not find any substance in the said contention of the petitioner. 15. The second contention of the petitioner is that P.W.10 did not identify the M.Os. 1 to 3 and therefore, that by itself would vitiate the findings of the Enquiry Officer. A perusal of the findings of the Enquiry Officer discloses that immediately after the incident, P.W.10 made a complaint to the Special Branch Inspector, who was examined as P.W.1 to whom, he handed over the petitioner as well as M.Os.1 to 3 along with his complaint. P.W.1 at the time of his examination before the Enquiring Authority identified M.Os.1 to 3. That apart, P.W.6 in his evidence specifically, identified M.Os.1 to 3 series and stated that he saw the petitioner handing over a khaki cover to P.W.10. P.W.6 is stated to be a former public prosecutor. The version of P.W.6 was corroborated by P.W.9, who is stated to be an Advocate clerk. He also deposed that after handing over of the cover by the petitioner and after opening the same, P.W.10 also showed the money contained in that cover to both P.Ws.6 and 9. P.Ws.6 and 9 are third parties and they were not obliged to P.W.10 as senior police officer. He also deposed that after handing over of the cover by the petitioner and after opening the same, P.W.10 also showed the money contained in that cover to both P.Ws.6 and 9. P.Ws.6 and 9 are third parties and they were not obliged to P.W.10 as senior police officer. There was nothing to suggest that P.Ws.6 and 9 have an axe to grind against the petitioner. There was also nothing to suggest that they were obliged to the Superintendent of Police, in order to state that they gave evidence against the petitioner for certain ulterior reasons. Therefore, merely because M.Os.1 to 3 were not really referred to by P.W.10, in the course of his evidence the same will not vitiate the whole proceedings when there was other overwhelming evidence to show that M.Os. 1 to 3 were the materials which were handed over by the petitioner to P.W.10, on the date of occurrence. Therefore, the said contention of the petitioner cannot also be accepted. 16. For the very same reason, the contention of the petitioner that independent witnesses viz., P.Ws.6 and 9 were not shown as Mahazar witnesses for the recovery of material objects 1 to 3 does not merit acceptance. The reliance placed upon section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be accepted in as much as in a disciplinary proceedings, the strict application of legal provisions do not come into play. In this context, it will be worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court reported in 1982 I LLJ 46 (State of Haryana Vs. Rattan Singh). In paragraph 4 the Honble Supreme Court has stated the legal position as under. “4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such materials and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act..........The essence of a judicial approach is objective, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such materials and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian Evidence Act..........The essence of a judicial approach is objective, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fairplay is basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of independence of judgment vitiate the conclusion reached, such finding, even though of a domestic Tribunal, cannot be held good.........The simple point is was there some evidence or was there no evidence—not in the sense of the technical rules governing regular Court proceedings but in a fair commonsense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a domestic Tribunal is beyond scrutiny........” When the above salient principle in respect of recording of evidence in domestic enquiry applies to the facts on hand, I am unable to find any serious flaw in the manner of recording of evidence or the way in which material objects 1 to 3 came to be marked in the enquiry proceedings. Therefore, no perversity can be attached to the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer in order to interfere with the same on the third ground urged by the petitioner. 17. The last contention of the learned senior counsel was that prior to the incident, the petitioner was entitled for some special rewards which was to be paid by P.W.10, and that though receipts were obtained from the petitioner, the actual amount was not paid to him. It was contended that since the petitioner made a demand for the said payment, P.W.10 was enraged by the petitioners demand and with a view to wreck vengeance on him, the charges were foisted against him. The said contention was specifically dealt with by the Enquiry Officer. In his findings, it is noted that as regards the non-receipt of special reward amount, the petitioner never made a claim to any one at any point of time. The Enquiry Officer has also noted that in proof of receipt of special rewards by the petitioner, the relevant receipt was produced before him which were all materials on record and that he had no reason to disbelieve its existence. The Enquiry Officer has also noted that in proof of receipt of special rewards by the petitioner, the relevant receipt was produced before him which were all materials on record and that he had no reason to disbelieve its existence. He has also found that those receipts were all received prior to the incident viz. 011. 1990. That apart, the Enquiry Officer has found contradictory stand of the petitioner with reference to the receipt of special reward amount as found in his explanation and argument of his counsel. In the explanation, the petitioner pleaded that without making the payment, the receipt was obtained from him, but in the argument before the Enquiring Authority, the petitioner counsel took the stand that the payments were actually made to somebody else other than the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer therefore rejected the said contention as an afterthought. The conclusion of the Enquiry Officer on the above aspect was perfectly in order and I do not find any flaw in the said conclusion. Therefore, the said contention of the petitioner also does not merit acceptance. 18. With this, when the decision relied upon by the learned senior counsel is examined, in the decision reported in AIR 1997 SC 3002 (Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation Vs. Virendra Kumar) the Honble Supreme Court has held as to how the sufficiency or adequacy of evidence recorded by a fact finding Tribunal should be dealt with. The Honble Supreme Court in paragraph 4 has stated the legal position as under: “4......It is well established that there is a difference between a finding based on sufficiency or adequacy of evidence and a finding based on no evidence. If the finding of fact recorded by the tribunal is based on no evidence, such a finding would suffer from error of law apparent on the face of record.....” Applying the above principle to the case on hand, I am fortified in my conclusion that there is enough material evidence that was placed before the Enquiring Authority to support his conclusion of guilt levelled against the petitioner. It is not a case of no evidence. On the other hand, it is a case of overwhelming evidence on record, which supported the conclusion of the Enquiring Authority. 19. In the decision reported in J.T.1998 (1) S.C. 319 (Ministry of Finance & Anr. Vs. It is not a case of no evidence. On the other hand, it is a case of overwhelming evidence on record, which supported the conclusion of the Enquiring Authority. 19. In the decision reported in J.T.1998 (1) S.C. 319 (Ministry of Finance & Anr. Vs. S.B.Ramesh) was also similar to the one stated in AIR 1997 S.C. 3002 . Here again, the Honble Supreme Court has held that where there is dearth of evidence to bring home the charge, the Administrative Tribunal was justified in interfering with the order of punishment. As stated earlier, since there was enough evidence to support the charge levelled against the petitioner herein, it cannot be held that there was lack of evidence to support the charges. 20. In the judgment reported in AIR 1979 S.C. 1708 (Jaspal Singh Vs. State of Punjab), the Honble Supreme Court held as under in paragraph 8: “8......The thumb impression of Tej Kaur on the alleged statement was sent to the expert who was of the opinion that this could not be the thumb impression of Tej Kaur. The science of identifying thumb impression is an exact science and does not admit of any mistake or doubt.......” The said statement of law came to be made by the Honble Supreme Court while dealing with an offence under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code alleged against the appellant therein, where he came to be convicted and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. As stated earlier, the principles and statutory prescription applicable to a criminal proceedings cannot be applied to a departmental action. While proof to the hilt is required in the criminal proceedings, preponderance of probability is sufficient in a departmental action. Therefore the ratio of the decision reported in AIR 1979 SC 1708 will have no application to the case on hand. 21. In the decision reported in 1999 8 SCC 582 (Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others) the Honble Supreme Court has stated that non-examination of the complainant in a departmental action would vitiate the proceedings. The Honble Supreme Court has specifically noted that the testimony of the complainant would have gone a long way to support the charges. 21. In the decision reported in 1999 8 SCC 582 (Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. and others) the Honble Supreme Court has stated that non-examination of the complainant in a departmental action would vitiate the proceedings. The Honble Supreme Court has specifically noted that the testimony of the complainant would have gone a long way to support the charges. The Honble Supreme Court found that the complainant and another witnesses who accompanied him were vital witnesses and therefore, their non-examination caused serious dent in the evidence recorded in the enquiry, such is not the case here. The complainant viz., the Superintendent of Police was examined as P.W.10 apart from other witnesses of whom two were independent witnesses. Therefore, the said decision also does not support the stand of the petitioner. 22. In the decision reported in 2005 4 CTC 202 (P.Erajan, Inspector of Police, District Crime Branch, Salem Vs. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli Range and others) a Division Bench of this Court has found fault with the non-examination of certain witnesses in a domestic enquiry. The Division Bench has found that though the delinquent officer wanted to examine three witnesses on his side, the same was not considered by the Enquiry Officer thereby a valuable opportunity was denied to him. It was in that context, the Division Bench held that for the non-examination of those witnesses, the enquiry should fail and consequently, the findings as well as the punishment were liable to be set aside. As the facts involved in that case and the case on hand varies in material particulars, the said decision can have no application to the facts of this case. 23. Having regard to myabove conclusion, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.