Judgment The Original Application in O.A.No.1794 of 2001 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was a Bill Collector in Periyanacikenpalayam Town Panchayat, Coimbatore District. The prosecution was launched against him based on the complaint given by one Mr.P. Kalimuthu, that the petitioner had demanded and accepted Rs.900/-towards plan approval. Based on the complaint of Mr. Kalimuthu, a trap was laid and one Mr. Manoharan belonging to Agricultural Department was an official witness, who witnessed the occurrence. Further the criminal prosecution ended in acquittal on 212. 1993. Thereafter, in the charge memo dated 112. 1997 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeals) Rule, an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer recorded a finding that the charges were not established in the enquiry report dated 15.09.1998. However, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and recorded his tentative disagreement view in the order dated 01.09.1999 and the tentative disagreement is based on the evidence of one Mr. Manoharan, who was the official witness. After obtaining explanation from the petitioner, the disciplinary authority found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges and imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect by the impugned order dated 03.06.2000. 3. The petitioner filed O.A.No.1794 of 2009 in W.P.No.48487 of 2007 to quash the aforesaid order of the respondent. 4. Heard Mr. Ravi Shanmugam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Tmt.C.K.Vishnu Priya, Additional Govt. Pleader, learned Government Advocate for the respondent. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the enquiry officer recorded the finding in categorical terms that the charges were not proved, the impugned order is bad and illegal. It is also submitted that when the very complainant resiled from the statement, there is no basis for the impugned punishment. It is also submitted that the Criminal Court acquitted the petitioner of all the charges. 6. I am not inclined to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The disciplinary authority can disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The findings of the enquiry officer is not a final one. The reasoning given by the disciplinary authority that there is evidence of one Mr. Manoharan against the petitioner cannot be found fault with. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The disciplinary authority can disagree with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer. The findings of the enquiry officer is not a final one. The reasoning given by the disciplinary authority that there is evidence of one Mr. Manoharan against the petitioner cannot be found fault with. Hence, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. There is no merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed.