Judgment :- 1. Challenging the impugned order dated 21.12.2010 in G.O.Ms.No.685, by which, the petitioner was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment without cumulative effect for the period of one year, this writ petition has been filed. 2. While, the petitioner was working as Revenue Divisional Officer, the charges have been framed framed by the 2nd respondent vide charge memo dated 11.12.2009. Totally three charges have been framed against the petitioner, not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioner which was framed against him to the Enquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer has found the charge No.1, has been proved. The Enquiry Officer has pointed out that the petitioner need not be proceeded for charge Nos.2 and 3. The Disciplinary Authority namely 1st respondent, not satisfied with the findings of the Executive Officer pertaining to charge No.3, issued a notice to the petitioner as to why he shall not be punished said charge. After hearing the petitioner, on charge Nos.1 and 3, the impugned punishment has been imposed by the respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. On a perusal of the charge No.3, it has been found to be proved by the respondent concerned, it is nothing but violation of duty by the petitioner. The said charge was stated to have been proved based upon the charge No.1. Therefore, this Court is concerned with the charge No.1 alone. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not imposed punishment as required under the TNMC Rule 1959. Since the person concerned has used the sand for domestic and agricultural purpose, inasmuch as the provisions permit, such an usage, charge No.1 cannot be sustained. A further submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tahsildar himself has been given a report to that effect, that the sand has been removed for agricultural purpose. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that the writ petition may be allowed. 5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted, for the reasons that being the Competent Authority to impose punishment, it is for the petitioner to satisfy the purpose for which the sand has been extracted. The charges are specifically to the effect that the petitioner has allowed the person concerned without imposing penalty required under relevant rules. The charges are specifically to the effect that the petitioner has allowed the person concerned without imposing penalty required under relevant rules. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to substantiate the basis upon which action was not taken. As found by the Disciplinary Authority, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has given factual findings that the sand has been used for agricultural purpose. It is also to be seen from the counter affidavit filed that the sand was removed clandestinely and without authority from the land belonging to the temple. Therefore, when the sand is removed from the land, belonging to the 3rd party by a person, even assuming the same has been removed for agricultural purpose, it cannot be said that such a person will be allowed to go free. Such a finding rendered by the disciplinary authority, based upon the records, which is finding on facts does not warrant any interference for this Court while exercising the power under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Insofar as the reliance made on the specific report dated 22.04.2009, given by the Tahsildar is concerned, the said report is taken into consideration by the 1st respondent. In fact, in the order impugned, it has been specifically stated about the necessity for giving such a report by the Tahsildar when the very same Tahsildar, has made a compliant to the police station and in the absence of any enquiry wanted from him, a subsequent report given by him, based upon an additional information sought for by the petitioner, cannot be relied upon, as found by the disciplinary authority. The charges are against the conduct of the petitioner being the Appropriate Authority. The petitioner cannot escape from the said charge by relying upon a subsequent communication of the sub-ordinate authority, which has been given at his request. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner also made another submission that charges have been framed against one another Officer and therefore, for failure on the part of the respondents to have combined enquiry covering the case of the petitioner along with the other persons, the proceedings will have to be set aside. 7. This Court is not able to countenance, the said argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, as against the petitioner, the 1st respondent is the Competent Authority. 7. This Court is not able to countenance, the said argument made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, as against the petitioner, the 1st respondent is the Competent Authority. Merely because, the charges have been framed against some other delinquent Officer, it is not necessary that the 1st respondent will have to combine both the case and decide. Further, the petitioner having not raised such a plea before the Enquiry Officer or before the 1st respondent, cannot raise it after passing of the impugned order. 8. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the charges proved are minor in nature and it is not as if the petitioner has mis-used his Official position. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is well open to the respondent to modify the charges. At the time of framing the charges, three charges have been framed and that is why, the charges were framed under Rule 17(B) of the Government Disciplinary Appeal Rules. Ultimately, the petitioner was given the punishment for charge No.1 alone. Taking note of the above said facts, the petitioner is given liberty to approach the 1st respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, for converting the charges under Section 17 (A) of the Rules. As and when the petitioner files such a report, the 1st respondent will have to consider the same within a period of eight weeks from the date of dismissal of this Court. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.