Judgment :- 1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the impugned order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent awarding the punishment of removal from service to the petitioner and to the order dated 29.09.2009 passed by the 1st respondent rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner, with a prayer to quash the same and to direct the respondents to issue appropriate orders permitting the petitioner to retire from service and disburse all retiral benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Sub Registrar in the year 1977 and is having unblemished record of service. He has been served with a charge memo dated 06.03.2002 under Rule 17[b] of Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules on the allegation that the petitioner, due to dereliction of duty, has caused revenue loss to the tune of Rs.20,060/-. The petitioner submitted a detailed explanation dated 30.08.2004. The first charge memo was superseded by another charge memo dated 18.01.2005 for the very same allegation and it was issued under rule 17[b]. The Department issued yet another charge memo dated 14.10.2005 alleging that the petitioner has caused revenue loss to the tune of Rs.18,74,380/-for 207 items noted during August 2002 to July 2004 and thereby derelicted in his duties and violated Rule 20[1] of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules. 2.1. An enquiry was conducted during the year 2006-2007 and ultimately, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 13.01.2007 holding that the charges have been proved against the petitioner and held that the petitioner has caused loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.8,97,657/-. Pursuant to the said Enquiry Report, the petitioner was suspended from service on the date of his attaining the age of superannuation, i.e., on 25.01.2007 and he was also not permitted to retire from service. 2.2. As there was no progress in the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner filed WP.No.25828/2007. This court, by the order dated 01.08.2007 directed that the disciplinary proceedings should be completed within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. Pursuant to the said order, final order was passed in the disciplinary proceedings on 04.12.2007 awarding punishment of removal from service to the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed. Pursuant to the said order, final order was passed in the disciplinary proceedings on 04.12.2007 awarding punishment of removal from service to the petitioner. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition is filed. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed another writ petition in WP.No.7466/2009 and in the said writ petition, this court passed an order dated 23.04.2009 directing the Government to pass order in the appeal preferred by the petitioner on 04.01.2008. The said appeal was rejected by the Government, viz., the 1st respondent herein by the order dated 29.09.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an amendment petition amending the prayer in which the petitioner has challenged both the orders, viz., the order dated 04.12.2007 passed by the 2nd respondent as well as the order passed by the 1st respondent dated 29.09.2009. 3. Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the impugned order dated 04.12.2007 is liable to be set aside as the same is unsustainable in law and put forward the following contentions:- [a] The charge is vague and not specific and as such, the entire proceedings is vitiated. [b] The Enquiry Officer has given his findings only on the basis of the documents without examining any witnesses and as such, it cannot be stated that the charges have been proved against the petitioner. [c] The disciplinary authority has failed to consider that this is a case of "no evidence" as the Department has not examined any witnesses to substantiate the charges and the Department cannot place reliance on the documents without examining its authors and as such, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. [d] The petitioner has not been furnished with the internal audit report on the basis of which the charge memos have been issued to the petitioner and as such, the impugned order is also passed in violation of principles of natural justice. [e] The petitioner has performed his duty only as a Joint Sub-Registrar and as such, the petitioner having registered the documents by exercising the quasi-judicial power, cannot be proceeded in the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the charges levelled against him. [e] The petitioner has performed his duty only as a Joint Sub-Registrar and as such, the petitioner having registered the documents by exercising the quasi-judicial power, cannot be proceeded in the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of the charges levelled against him. [f] The Department has not come forward with a definite charge and even in respect of the allegation, viz., the petitioner causing loss to the Government is also changed from Rs.18,74,380/- to Rs.8,97,657/- and there is a discrepency between the first charge memo and the second charge memo which shows that without application of mind, the charge memos have been issued against the petitioner. [g] Even assuming that due to his conduct, of the petitioner has caused loss to the Government by way of under valuing the properties registered by him, the remedy is available only u/s.47-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Manual and the petitioner is not liable to be proceeded under the disciplinary proceedings under rule 17[b] of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services [Discipline and Appeal] Rules. 4. Per contra, Ms.V.M.Velumani, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would contend that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondents. It is contended that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved by the documents relied on by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority has rightly passed the impugned order awarding the punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. She would also contend that the petitioner has not given any explanation for the charge memo issued against him. It is also pointed out that in respect of the charge memo dated 18.01.2005 issued against the petitioner, he has given his explanation only on 03.10.2006 and in respect of the charge memo dated 14.10.2005, the petitioner has given the explanation only on 14.07.2006 and the said explanations are not acceptable. Lastly, she would submit that the petitioner has under valued the documents and registered the same on the basis of the documents relied by the Enquiry Officer and caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.8,97,657/- and thereby, the disciplinary authority has rightly passed the impugned order of removal from service against the petitioner. 5. Lastly, she would submit that the petitioner has under valued the documents and registered the same on the basis of the documents relied by the Enquiry Officer and caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.8,97,657/- and thereby, the disciplinary authority has rightly passed the impugned order of removal from service against the petitioner. 5. This court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the entire materials available on records including the impugned orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2. CHARGE MEMO ISSUED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS VAGUE AND BALD AND NOT SPECIFIC:- 6. At the outset, it is to be stated that the petitioner has been issued with a charge memo dated 04.12.2007 consisting of the following charge:- "The petitioner, while he was serving as Joint Sub-Registrar at Chidambaram, for the period from August 2002 to July 2004, has under valued the stamp duty in respect of 207 items and the internal audit reveals that there is a loss of Rs.18,74,380/-and thereby, the petitioner has violated Rule 20[1] of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules." 6. A. It is pertinent to note that in the Enquiry Officer's report dated 13.01.2007 itself it has been clearly stated that in respect of the said charge memo, the list of witnesses have not been enclosed. Be it as it may, the fact remains even the above stated charge itself is vague and bald and the same is not specific. It is to be stated that except making such a bald allegation in the charge memo issued against the petitioner as stated above, only a list was enclosed wherein the respective loss said to have been caused for each and every items have been mentioned. But, neither in the charge nor in the list annexed along with the same, does not state as to how such a loss occurred and in what manner the petitioner being the Joint Sub-Registrar who have registered the said documents, has committed any dereliction of duty or negligent in his official performance of duty. I am of the considered opinion that in view of the said bald and vague charge issued against the petitioner, the entire proceedings is vitiated. 6. I am of the considered opinion that in view of the said bald and vague charge issued against the petitioner, the entire proceedings is vitiated. 6. B. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer an unreported judgment of the First Bench of this court dated 03.07.2008 in WA.No.587 of 2008 [Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government, Chennai-9 and others Vs. M.Surbamanian]. The Hon'ble First bench has relied on several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court holding in the said case that the charges are totally vague and as such, there is no legal and valid basis for continuing with the departmental proceedings. The First Bench has placed reliance on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court: [A] SURATH CHANDRA CHAKRAVARTY Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL reported in AIR 1971 SC 752 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as here under:- "4.......... The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This Rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against his are founded, he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him........." [B] SAWAI SINGH VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN reported in AIR 1986 SC 995 , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as here under:- "... where a departmental enquiry entails consequences like loss of job, which nowadays means loss of livelihood, there must be fair play in action in respect of an order involving adverse and penal consequences of an employee, and the learned Judges held that the charges must be clear and specific; otherwise, it will be difficult for the employee to meet the charges. ............ 14. ............ 14. Quite apart from that fact, it appears to us that the charges were vague and it was difficult to meet the charges fairly by any accused Evidence adduced was perfunctory and did not at all bring home the guilt of the accused." [C] TRANSPORT CORPORATION, MADRAS-5 Vs. A.RADHAKRISHNAMOORTHY reported in 1999 [1] SCC 332, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph 9 as here under:- "9. Insofaras the vagueness of the charges is concerned we find that it deserves acceptance. It is asserted by Shri Vaidhyanathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent that except the memo of charges dated 04.06.1989, no other particulars of charges or supporting particulars were supplied. This assertion could not be denied by the learned counsel for the appellant. A reading of charges would show that they are not specific and clear. They do no point out clearly the precise charge against the respondent, which he was expected to meet. One can understand the charges being accompanied by a statement of particulars or other statement furnishing the particulars of the aforesaid charges but that was not done. The charges are general in nature to the effect that the respondent along with 8 other officials indulged in misappropriating by falsification of accounts. What part did the respondent play, which account did he falsify or help falsify, which amount did he individually or together with other named persons misappropriate, are not particularised. The charge is a general one. It is significant to notice that respondent has been objecting to the charges on the ground of vagueness from the earliest stage and yet he was not furnished with the particulars. It is brought to our notice that respondent's name was not included in the schedule appended to GOMs.No.928 dated 25.04.1988 mentioning the names of officials responsible for falsification of accounts and misappropriation and that he is also not made an accused in the criminal proceedings initiated in that behalf." [D] The latest decision in GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS Vs. A. VENKATA RAIDU reported in 2007 [1] SCC 338, wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held in paragraph 9 as here under:- "9. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court. A. VENKATA RAIDU reported in 2007 [1] SCC 338, wherein the Hon'ble Apex court has held in paragraph 9 as here under:- "9. We respectfully agree with the view taken by the High Court. It is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held. In charge 1, what is mentioned is that the respondent violated the orders issued by the Government. However, no details of these orders have been mentioned in Charge 1. It is well settled that a charge-sheet should not be vague but should be specific. The authority should have mentioned the date of the GO which is said to have been violated by the respondent, the number of that GO, etc., but that was not done. Copies of the said Gos, or directions of the Government were not even placed before the Enquiry Officer. Hence, charge 1 was not specific and hence, no finding of guilt can be fixed on the basis of that charge. Moreover, as the High Court has found, the respondent only renewed the deposit already made by his predecessors. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent cannot be found guilty for the offence charged." The principles laid down by the First Bench of this court as well as by a catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court are squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also, this court has already pointed out that the charge levelled against the petitioner is vague and bald and not specific which resulted in grave prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner and as such, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. CHARGE LEVELLED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY EVIDENCE:- 7. The yet another disturbing feature in this case is that even in respect of the above said vague and bald allegation, the Department has miserably failed to put forward any evidence by examining any witnesses to substantiate the charge framed against the petitioner. CHARGE LEVELLED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY EVIDENCE:- 7. The yet another disturbing feature in this case is that even in respect of the above said vague and bald allegation, the Department has miserably failed to put forward any evidence by examining any witnesses to substantiate the charge framed against the petitioner. At the risk of repetition, it is to be stated that even in the Enquiry Officer's report, it is stated that no witnesses are cited and examined and the Enquiry Officer's report is mainly based on the documents without examining any witnesses. A perusal of the impugned order dated 04.12.2007 also reveals that the Disciplinary Authority, viz., the 2nd respondent has placed reliance only on the charge memo issued against the petitioner coupled with the self-explanation given by the petitioner along with the documents relied on by the Enquiry Officer. The impugned order does not refer to any evidence of witnesses and the disciplinary authority has mainly placed reliance on the Enquiry Officer's report. It is pertinent to note that the Enquiry Report dated 13.01.2007 in na.Ka.No.4131/A1/2008 discloses that the Enquiry Officer has placed reliance on the Internal Audit Inspection Report and even a copy of the said report was not furnished to the petitioner. Therefore, this court has no hesitation to hold that this is a classic case of "No Evidence" as the Department has not examined any witnesses and the findings are merely based on the documents without examining its authors or the persons related to the said documents. 7. b. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in YOGINATH D.BAGDE Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER reported in 1999 [7] SCC 739, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held has here under:- "51.................... The law is well settled that if the findings are perverse and are not supported by evidence on record or the findings recorded at the domestic trial are such to which no reasonable person would have reached, it would be open to the High Court as also to this Court to interfere in the matter. In Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police [1999 [2] SCC 10], this court, relying upon the earlier decisions in Nand Kishore Prasad V. State of Bihar [1978 [3] SCC 366], State of Andhra Pradesh vS. In Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police [1999 [2] SCC 10], this court, relying upon the earlier decisions in Nand Kishore Prasad V. State of Bihar [1978 [3] SCC 366], State of Andhra Pradesh vS. Rama Rao [ AIR 1963 SC 1723 ], Central Bank of India Ltd., Vs. Prakash Chand Jain [ AIR 1969 SC 983 ], Bharat Iron Works Vs. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel [1976 [1] SCC 518] as also Rajinder Kumar Kindra Vs. Delhi Administration [1984 [4] SCC 635] laid down that although the court cannot sit in appeal over the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiry Officer in a Departmental enquiry, it does not mean that in no circumstance can the court interfere. It was observed that the power of judicial review available to a High Court as also to this court under the Constitution takes in its stride the domestic enquiry as well and the Courts can interfere with the conclusions reached therein if there was no evidence to support the findings or the findings recorded were such as could not have been reached by an ordinary prudent man or the findings were perverse." The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra is also squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also, it is already pointed out by this court that admittedly, no witness has been examined on the side of the Department to substantiate the charge framed against the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority has placed reliance mainly on the Enquiry Officer's report and the said report was also based on certain documents and as such, it cannot be stated that the charge levelled against the petitioner has been proved in a manner known to law. In view of the said serious infirmity and illegality, the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 8. Even assuming that the petitioner is responsible for causing loss to the Government due to his negligence or dereliction of duty, the only course available to the Department is to take action as per the provision u/s.47-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Manual and the petitioner cannot be proceeded under Rule 17[b] of the Rules. 8. Even assuming that the petitioner is responsible for causing loss to the Government due to his negligence or dereliction of duty, the only course available to the Department is to take action as per the provision u/s.47-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Manual and the petitioner cannot be proceeded under Rule 17[b] of the Rules. Section 47-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Manual reads as here under:- "47-A:- Instruments of conveyance etc., under valued how to be dealt with:- [1] The Registering officer appointed under the Registration Act, 1908 [Central Act XVI of 1908] while registering any instrument of conveyance, dissolution of partnership, exchange of property, gift, partition, release or settlement shall estimate the market value of the property which is the subject matter of such instrument as per the market value guidelines of properties prepared by the "Valuation Committee" constituted under section 47-AA and communicate the said estimated value to the parties concerned and unless the parties pay the duty on the basis of such valuation, he shall keep pending the process of registration of such instrument and refer the matter within a month along with a copy of such instrument, to the Collector for determination of the market value of such property and the proper duty payable thereon." 9. It is relevant to note that as per the charge memo, the petitioner is said to have caused loss to the Government to the tune of Rs.18,74,380/-. But as per the Enquiry Officer's report, the said amount was reduced to Rs.8,97,657/-and the respondents have not produced any materials before this court to show that action was initiated as per the provision u/s.47-A of the Tamil Nadu Stamp Manual. Lastly, it is to be stated that even the Appellate Authority, viz., the 1st respondent herein has passed an order which is also a non-speaking order and no reasons are assigned for confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority, viz., the 2nd respondent herein and as such, both the orders are liable to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.59177/R2/04 dated 04.12.2007 and the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O. [D] No.431, Commercial Taxes and Registration [H2] Department dated 29.09.2009 are hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. 10. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 2nd respondent in proceedings No.59177/R2/04 dated 04.12.2007 and the order passed by the 1st respondent in G.O. [D] No.431, Commercial Taxes and Registration [H2] Department dated 29.09.2009 are hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, the petitioner is entitled to all the attendant and monetary benefits and the same shall be disbursed to the petitioner by the respondents 1 and 2 within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.