Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was working as a Sub-Registrar at Perambalur from 1996 to 2001. While so, one Mr.Jayaraman of Chiruvachur Village went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy on 03.12.2001 at 11.30 am and lodged a complaint that he owns lands at Chiruvachur village and that he wanted to make those lands as Plots so as to sell them. For the said purpose, he wanted to grant power to one Mr.Nataraj, son of Perumal. He went to the Sub-Registrars Office at Permabalur and enquired the Sub-Registrar about the registration of a deed granting power. The Sub-Registrar demanded him to pay Rs.300/- besides the legal charges. 2. In these circumstances, Mr.Jayaraman went to the office of the Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Trichy and lodged a complaint and the same was registered as FIR in Crime No.12/2001 under Section 7 of PC Act, 1988. Thereafter, Thiru. Govindasamy, Inspector of Police, who registered the complaint, proceeded to investigate the matter. When Thiru. Govindasamy went to the office of the Sub Registrar for the purpose of investigation, a piece of paper was thrown out by the petitioner from his pocket, after tearing the same. He pieced those papers and found that it was written as Elam Rs.150/-, Marriage Rs.150/- and Perali Rs.300/-. He also seized the document No.3509, Hindu Marriage Application No.37/2001 and document No.3513 of 2001. 3. Thereafter, the investigation was handed over to one Thiru.Ambigapathy, Inspector of Police. Thiru.Ambigapathy did further investigation. According to him, he sent the piece of paper that was thrown out by the petitioner from his pocket after tearing the same to Forensic Department after getting the signature of the petitioner to verify whether the piece of paper was written by the petitioner. 4. Thereafter, one Mr. Akbar, Inspector of Police said to have enquired various persons and recorded statements under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code. It is stated that a Criminal Case in C.C.No.3/2000 is pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Perambalur. 5. While so, the Tribunal for disciplinary proceeding, Trichy issued a charge memo in R.C.No.A1/197/2004 dated 18.11.2004 to the petitioner, wherein three charges in T.D.P.Case Nos.2/2004 to 4/2004, were made. (i) Charge in T.D.P.No.2 of 2004 is that when Mr. V. Ayub, Kalathur Village met the petitioner at 3.00 pm on 03.12.2001 for registering a document in the name of Tmt. Shakila Baham. (i) Charge in T.D.P.No.2 of 2004 is that when Mr. V. Ayub, Kalathur Village met the petitioner at 3.00 pm on 03.12.2001 for registering a document in the name of Tmt. Shakila Baham. V., on purchase of house site Plots No.159 & 160 at Elambalur from Thiru. Subramanian, Perambalur, the petitioner demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.150/- as bribe from Mr. V. Ayub, excluding registration fees of Rs.250/-. (ii) Charge in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 is that when Thiru.Karuppiah of Kattur, Trichy District met the petitioner at 2.00 pm on 03.12.2001 for registering his marriage with Akilandeswari that took place on 09.05.2001, the petitioner demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.150/- as bribe amount excluding the registration fees of Rs.7/-from Thiru.Karuppiah. (iii) Charge in T.D.P.No.4 of 2004 is that when Thiru Vellamuthu of Perali Village met the petitioner at 4.00 pm on 3.12.2001 to register a document relating to the purchase of lands from M/s. Ramasamy, Vellamuthu and Manickam, the petitioner demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.300/- as bribe excluding registration charges of Rs.280/-from Vellamuthu. 6. In the enquiry, before the Tribunal, 22 witnesses were examined and 8 documents were marked, relating to all the charges in T.D.P.No.2 of 2004, T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 and T.D.P.No.4 of 2004. 7. The Tribunal recorded the findings dated 20.10.2006 that the charges in T.D.P.No.2 of 2004 and T.D.P.No.4 of 2004 were not established and that the charges levelled against the petitioner in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 was established. Based on such findings of the Tribunal, the second respondent issued a letter dated 21.06.2007 furnishing the findings of the Tribunal and directed the petitioner to submit his views on the report of the Tribunal. The petitioner gave his explanation on the findings of the Tribunal, in his letter dated 19.07.2007. The second respondent passed the order dated 14.12.2007 dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 21.07.2008 before the first respondent. The first respondent passed the impugned order in G.O.(D)No.22, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H2) Department, dated 23.01.2009 modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to "compulsory retirement". 8. The second respondent passed the order dated 14.12.2007 dismissing the petitioner from service. Aggrieved by the dismissal order, the petitioner filed an appeal dated 21.07.2008 before the first respondent. The first respondent passed the impugned order in G.O.(D)No.22, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H2) Department, dated 23.01.2009 modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to "compulsory retirement". 8. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to quash the order dated dated 14.12.2007 of the second respondent and G.O.[D].No.22, Commercial Taxes and Registration [H2] Department, dated 23.01.2009 of the first respondent, and for a consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits. 9. Notice of motion was ordered on 08.07.2009. 10. The second respondent has filed counter affidavit. 11. Heard Mr. M. Ravi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Lita Srinivasan, learned Government Advocate for the respondents. 12. The learned Government Advocate has made her submissions based on the counter affidavit of the second respondent and also from the instructions received from the first respondent. The learned Government Advocate has also produced the entire original records for my perusal. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has no legal evidence to substantiate the charge made in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 and hence the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed in the impugned G.O. is illegal. He further submits that the Tribunal, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority committed error in holding that the charges in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 were proved, while there is no evidence at all. He further submits that nobody supported the case of the prosecution, still it is held that the charges were proved. He has taken me through the findings of the Tribunal, the dismissal order of the Appellate Authority and also the evidence recorded by the Tribunal. 14. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 15. Out of 22 witnesses, the relevant witnesses relating to charge in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 were P.W.4. - Karuppiah, P.W.5. - Akilandeswari, P.W.7. - Manickam, P.W.16. -Chithirasennan and P.W.17. - Elayaraja. The allegation in the charge memo is that to register the marriage of Thiru. Karuppiah with Akilandeswari, the petitioner demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.150/- as bribe, excluding the registration fees of Rs.7/-. But both Karuppiah and Akilandeswari categorically deposed that they have paid only Rs.7/-towards registration charges. - Akilandeswari, P.W.7. - Manickam, P.W.16. -Chithirasennan and P.W.17. - Elayaraja. The allegation in the charge memo is that to register the marriage of Thiru. Karuppiah with Akilandeswari, the petitioner demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.150/- as bribe, excluding the registration fees of Rs.7/-. But both Karuppiah and Akilandeswari categorically deposed that they have paid only Rs.7/-towards registration charges. Both Karuppiah and Akilandeswari did not support the prosecution and they categorically denied the allegation that the petitioner demanded and accepted Rs.150/- as bribe for registering their marriage. Other three witnesses viz., P.W.7. - Manickam, P.W.16. - Chithirasennan and P.W.17. - Elayaraja signed in the document before the Registrar as witnesses to the marriage and they were treated hostile witnesses and they were also cross-examined by the Department. At the time of cross-examination, they categorically stated that they did not state during the investigation that the petitioner demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.150/- as bribe. They also categorically stated that only Rs.7/- was paid as registration charges. It is relevant that both P.W.4. - Karuppiah and P.W.5. - Akilandeswari, were not even contradicted about their alleged version before the Investigating Officer. In any event, the statements alleged to have been made during the investigation, were not produced and marked in the enquiry. The only documents marked in the enquiry in relation to the charge in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 are Ex.P4 – Application No.37/2001 for registration of marriage under the Hindu Marriage (Registration) Rules, 1967 and Ex.P8 – certified copy of Hindu Marriage Register in Application No.37/2001 16. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner are well founded. 17. The findings of the Disciplinary Authority, while dismissing the petitioner from service, is extracted here-under:- TAMIL 18. After holding that neither Mr. Karuppiah nor other witnesses supported the charge, the following are the reasons given by the second respondent for holding the charge relating to demanding and accepting a sum of Rs.150/- for registering the marriage of Karuppiah and Akilandeswari. (i) As per P.W.4, the marriage took place on 05.09.2001, but all the witnesses deposed, as if the marriage took place on 09.05.2001. (ii) P.W.16. - Chithirasennan and P.W.17. - Elayaraja stated that they did not attend the marriage of Karuppiah and Akilandeswari, but they were shown as witnesses in the Ex.P.8, Hindu Marriage Register. (i) As per P.W.4, the marriage took place on 05.09.2001, but all the witnesses deposed, as if the marriage took place on 09.05.2001. (ii) P.W.16. - Chithirasennan and P.W.17. - Elayaraja stated that they did not attend the marriage of Karuppiah and Akilandeswari, but they were shown as witnesses in the Ex.P.8, Hindu Marriage Register. (iii) The petitioner failed to obtain any documentary evidence relating to the residence of Mr. Karuppiah, while he sought to register the marriage. 19. In my considered view, the aforesaid reasons could not establish the charge of demanding and accepting bribe. The allegation against the petitioner is not that he was negligent in discharging his duties. The aforesaid reasons could not be relied on to establish the charge of demanding and accepting bribe. The second respondent is not correct in stating that he came to the conclusion on the principle of preponderance of probability, when none of the witnesses supported the charge of demanding and accepting the bribe. The following passage in the impugned order makes it clear that there is no legal evidence in support of the charge: TAMIL As stated above, the statement alleged to have been given by the witnesses before the Investigating Officer, Mr.Akbar – P.W.22, was not even marked. Though it was suggested to P.W.7. - Manickam, P.W.16. - Chithirasennan and P.W.17. - Elayaraja that they made different statements before the Investing Officer, those statements were not produced and marked for the purpose of contradicting the witnesses. P.W.4.- Karuppiah and P.W.5. -Akilandeswari were not even suggested that they made different statements before the Investigating Officer. Hence, the conclusion of the second respondent, Disciplinary Authority is totally perverse and no prudent person could arrive at such a conclusion based on the materials available on record. 20. Thus the dismissal order has no leg to stand. Thereafter, when the petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, the first respondent passed the impugned order in G.O.(D)No.22, Commercial Taxes and Registration (H2) Department, dated 23.01.2009 modifying the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement after consulting the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. 21. The first respondent did not take into account the crucial fact that none of the witnesses viz., P.W.4.-Karuppiah, P.W.5.- Akilandeswari, P.W.7.- Manickam, P.W.16.-Chithirasennan and P.W.17. - Elayaraja spoke in support of the charge. 21. The first respondent did not take into account the crucial fact that none of the witnesses viz., P.W.4.-Karuppiah, P.W.5.- Akilandeswari, P.W.7.- Manickam, P.W.16.-Chithirasennan and P.W.17. - Elayaraja spoke in support of the charge. In fact, when two other charges were held as not proved, as none of the witnesses support the charges, on the same reasoning, the charge in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 also should have been held as not proved. 22. In my considered view, there is absolutely no reason to come to the conclusion that the charge in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 was proved. In fact, if the charge of demanding and accepting the bribe is held to be proved, there is no question of modification of punishment. But it is surprising that after holding that the charge is held proved, the first respondent modified the punishment in the following words:- "4. Accordingly, in the reference sixth read above the appeal of Thiru. S. Vedarasu, dated 21.07.2008 was received through proper channel from the Inspector General of Registration, on which the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission were called for, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the letter 7th read above has offered its views as follows:- "The Commission has carefully gone thorough the records connected to the case. The Inspector General of Registration has inflicted the punishment of removal from service for the only proven charge of demand and acceptance of Rs.150/- as bribe, for registration of marriage, from one Mr. Karuppiah (P.W.4). The main plank of the appellants appeal is that the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and Inspector General of Registration have been adverse inferences against him based on the specious contradictions in the otherwise clear deposition of Mr. Karuppiah(P.W.4) and Akilandeswari(P.W.5) and that the major punishment of removal would have a severe impact on his life. On an exhaustive and circumspect scrutiny of the relevant records, particularly the finding of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings on the three charges against the appellant, the final orders of the Inspector General of Registration and the explanation of the appellant, it is clear that the volte face of P.W.4 and P.W.5 has NOT titled the evidence in favour of and rescued the appellant from the charge. On the other hand P.W.4 and P.W.5 (M/s. Karuppiah and Akilandeswari) who resile from their earlier statements to the inquiry officer, fail miserably in their cogency and credibility. On the other hand P.W.4 and P.W.5 (M/s. Karuppiah and Akilandeswari) who resile from their earlier statements to the inquiry officer, fail miserably in their cogency and credibility. While P.W.4 has deposed the year of the marriage incorrectly as 2002 in lieu of 2001, P.W.5 has erred on the identity of the appellant. The turn about of prosecution witnesses 4 and 5 is replete with contradictions enough to render the case of the prosecution probable. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings which had acquitted the appellant of the other two equally vicious charges based on the hostility in depositions of the main witnesses, could not help holding this charge as proved owing to the anti-defence nature of the deposition. The appellants explanation does not contain anything to dislodge the conclusions of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings on the second charge save the contention that the evidence of P.W.4 and P.W.5 is not enough to qualify for the standard of proof by preponderance of probability. However, notwithstanding the conclusions of the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings and the Inspector General of Registration, the punishment imposed on the appellant is disproportionate to the established misconduct. Considering the nature of the misdeed, equivocal nature of the evidence let in and the devastating effect of "removal" on the appellant, the imposed punishment warrants abatement. There will be no prejudice to justice, if the punishment is reduced to compulsory retirement. The Commission, therefore, advices the Government, to convert the punishment of "removal from service" to "compulsory retirement" and dispose of the appeal accordingly." 5. The Government have examined the appeal of Thiru. S. Vedarasu, formerly Sub-Registrar, Perambalur, Trichy District, with the views of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission independently, together with the connected records and decided to accept the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The Government, accordingly direct that the punishment of "removal from service" imposed on Thiru. S. Vedarasu, formerly Sub-Registrar by the Inspector General of Registration be modified into that of "Compulsory Retirement." 23. The first respondent simply accepted the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the same is extracted in para 4 of the impugned G.O. There was no discussion as to the crucial fact that none of the witnesses viz., P.W.4. Karuppiah, P.W.5. Akilandeswari, P.W.7. Manickam, P.W.16. Chithirasennan and P.W.17. Elayaraja supported the charge. The first respondent simply accepted the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and the same is extracted in para 4 of the impugned G.O. There was no discussion as to the crucial fact that none of the witnesses viz., P.W.4. Karuppiah, P.W.5. Akilandeswari, P.W.7. Manickam, P.W.16. Chithirasennan and P.W.17. Elayaraja supported the charge. The first respondent also does not give any reason to hold that the charge in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004 is proved, except stating that they accept the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. In fact, when the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission noted that the other 2 charges in T.D.P.No.2 of 2004 and T.D.P.No.4 of 2004 were held as not proved, as the witnesses did not support the charge, the same thing should follow in the case of the charge in T.D.P.No.3 of 2004. 24. Both the impugned orders dated 14.12.2007 of the second respondent and G.O. [D].No.22, Commercial Taxes and Registration [H2] Department, dated 23.01.2009 of the first respondent are opposed to the decisions of the Honble Apex Court in M.V.BIJLANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2006) 5 SCC 88 . Para 25 of the judgment is extracted here-under:- "It is true that the jurisdiction of the Court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary Proceedings, however, being quash-criminal in nature, there should be some evidence to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceeding are not required to be proved like a criminal trial i.e. beyond all reasonable doubt, we cannot lose sight of the fact that the enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function, who upon analysing the documents must arrive at a conclusion that there had been a preponderance of probability to prove the charges on the basis of materials on record. While doing so, he cannot take into consideration an irrelevant fact. He cannot refuse to consider the relevant facts. He cannot shift the burden of proof. He cannot reject the relevant testimony of the witnesses only on the basis of surmises and conjectures. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with." 25. In my considered view, the impugned orders are perverse and hence, the same are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 26. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. He cannot enquire into the allegations with which the delinquent officer had not been charged with." 25. In my considered view, the impugned orders are perverse and hence, the same are quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits. 26. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.