Judgment :- The petitioner was issued with a charge memo alleging that he has granted Rs.250/- as if a part of Mr. Gandhi’s house got damaged, whereas a small part of the extension wall near a drinking water wall was also round damaged. Secondly, the second charge was also given to show that the petitioner has granted Rs.250/- to one Mr. Selvam, S/o. Arumugam Chettiar, towards compensation for damage occurred to his house wall. But actually, the Northern side wall of the House No.13A2 of Selvam was found damaged. On the receipt of the said charge memo, the petitioner submitted his explanation. Having not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, an enquiry was ordered, for which the petitioner also took part and submitted a detailed explanation stating that the wall of Gandhi’s house at House No.71D, Pollur Road was damaged and granted a sum of Rs.250/- since a wall of the house was found damaged and further he also submitted another explanation in respect of house owned by Mr. Selvam S/o. Arumugam Chettiar, residing in No.13A1, stating that since his house wall also found damaged, he was granted a sum of Rs.250/-. The Enquiry Officer, after considering the case of the petitioner and considering the documents produced by both sides, came to the conclusion that the charges were not proved against the petitioner. When the Enquiry Officer’s report stating that the charges were not proved, the Disciplinary Authority having deferred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, issued second show cause notice, to submit his explanation as to why the findings of the Enquiry Officer should not be differed with. The Disciplinary Authority has relied upon the inspection report submitted by the District Revenue Officer, Tiruvannamalai, dated 20.11.1993. In the said report submitted by the District Revenue Officer, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that no such damage was occurred to any of the walls of house owned by Mr. Gandhi, S/o. Munusamy and another house owned by Mr. Selvam S/o. Arumugam Chettiar. Finally, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filled the appeal before the first respondent, and the same was dismissed by confirming the order passed by the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filled the original application before the Tribunal. Selvam S/o. Arumugam Chettiar. Finally, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filled the appeal before the first respondent, and the same was dismissed by confirming the order passed by the second respondent. Hence, the petitioner has filled the original application before the Tribunal. On abolition of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.44716 of 2006. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the charges not proved against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority should not have differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Particularly, even the Inspection report submitted by the District Revenue Officer has also proved the case of the petitioner stating that there were two houses and both walls of the both houses were found damaged. Only upon the verification of the damage occurred on the walls of Mr. Gandhi’s house and the house walls belonging to Mr. Selvam, the petitioner has granted only a sum of Rs.250/- each to Mr. Gandhi as well as Mr. Selvam. But the inspection report while indicating that the damage occurred on the walls of both houses, the Disciplinary Authority has wrongly imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Such order is against the Inspection report submitted by the District Revenue Officer. On the basis of the above submission, he prayed for quashing the impugned order. 3. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader submits that the Enquiry Officer has not submitted the correct report without the inspection notes submitted by the District Revenue Officer, who has clearly mentioned, that only small portion of extension of wall nearing drinking water wall of Mr. Gandhi, S/o. Munusamy, got damaged. The petitioner has wrongly granted a sum of Rs.250/- as compensation for damage to the house of Gandhi and again another sum of Rs.250/- was also granted to one Mr. Selvam, residing in No.13A1, as a part of the house was damaged. When the inspection notes submitted by the District Revenue Officer has clearly mentioned that there was no damage occurred, granting a sum of Rs.250/- each, as compensation for damaged houses to Mr. Gandhi as well as to Mr. Selvam, found to be incorrect. Selvam, residing in No.13A1, as a part of the house was damaged. When the inspection notes submitted by the District Revenue Officer has clearly mentioned that there was no damage occurred, granting a sum of Rs.250/- each, as compensation for damaged houses to Mr. Gandhi as well as to Mr. Selvam, found to be incorrect. On that basis, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Since the said order of punishment imposed against the petitioner was also challenged by way of appeal before the first respondent and the said case of the petitioner was also properly considered by the first respondent, the correctness of the order challenged in the present writ petition is not maintainable. On that basis, he prayed for dismissal. 4. Heard both sides. It is the case of the petitioner that he has granted a sum of Rs.250/- as compensation to one Mr. Gandhi S/o. Munusamy, residing at 71-D, Pollur Road for having caused damage to his wall. But not only that, the petitioner has also granted a sum of Rs.250/- as compensation to one Mr. Selvam, S/o. Arumugam Chettiar, residing in House No.13A1 for having suffered damages to his wall. When the inspection was carried out by the District Revenue Officer, he had submitted his Inspection notes dated 20.11.1993, stating that only a small part of the extension wall near by drinking water was found damaged. In respect of one Selvam house, the same inspection note states that Northern side wall of the house No.13A2 which stands before the house of Mr. Selvam got damaged. When the inspection note submitted by the District Revenue Officer, clearly shows that the house of Mr. Gandhi, S/o. Munusamy, residing at No.71D, Pollur Road was found damaged, the petitioner is bound to grant compensation of Rs.250/-to Mr. Gandhi, on the basis of the damage occurred to his house. Secondly, the house owned by Mr. Selvam S/o. Arumugam Chettiar, also suffered the damaged to the wall of his house. This fact was also properly proved by the Inspection notes submitted by the District Revenue Officer. The inspection notes also specifically state that the Northern side wall of house No.13A2 which stands before the house of Mr. Selvam got damaged. Secondly, the house owned by Mr. Selvam S/o. Arumugam Chettiar, also suffered the damaged to the wall of his house. This fact was also properly proved by the Inspection notes submitted by the District Revenue Officer. The inspection notes also specifically state that the Northern side wall of house No.13A2 which stands before the house of Mr. Selvam got damaged. If that be so, I do not find, on what basis the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the punishment and this fact was also properly discussed by the enquiry officer in his report. The Enquiry Officer report clearly indicates the fact that the petitioner has granted as a compensation of Rs.250/-each to Mr. Gandhi and Mr. Selvam having suffered the damage to the house wall situated in No.71-D, Pollur Road and in No.13A2. When that being the case, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority differing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer is absolutely wrong, as it is totally going against the very documentary evidence filed by the Thiruvannamalai District Revenue Officer who said to have inspected the two houses. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the order of the punishment imposed against the petitioner is liable to be set aside. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and accordingly, the impugned orders viz., (1) Na.Ka.(Pani)-4(1)/57810/98 dated 25.8.1999 and (2) Na.Ka.A2/32180/94 dated 17.03.1998 are hereby set aside. No costs.