Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed as Village Administrative Officer on 14.03.1984. He worked as Village Administrative Officer at Pakkanadu Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem district from 27.11.1986 to 02.06.1988. There were complaints against the petitioner which resulted in Directorate of Vigilance and Anti Corruption department, to conduct investigation into the allegations. The matter was referred to Tribunal for disciplinary proceedings for holding departmental enquiry. 2. The submission of the petitioner, is that he belongs to scheduled caste, and on account of his caste, there was some misunderstanding between him and the Villagers of Pakkanadu Village. Thiru Madesh, a powerful and influential politician who was former President of the Pakkanadu Village Panchayat, instigated the Villagers to send false complaints against the petitioner, alleging that he had demanded and accepted illegal gratification. 3. It is alleged that Thiru Madesh had motive against the petitioner, on account of the complaint filed by the petitioner with the police under P.C.R. Act which was enquired by the police. 4. The Tribunal for Disciplinary proceedings, Coimbatore framed the following charges against the petitioner. Charge I : That actuated by dishonest motive and in abuse of his position and authority and with intent to secure wrongful gain, while he was working as Village Administrative Officer, Pakkanadu Village, Sankari Taluk, Salem District, demanded and accepted bribe varying from Rs.150 to Rs.300/-from Thiru Madhaiyan and 8 others, for doing the needful towards issue of pattas in their favour in respect of the poramboke lands of Pakkanadu Village, under their cultivation and thereby he had failed to maintain absolute integrity in Government service and conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Government servant. Charge II : That actuated by dishonest motive and in abuse of his position and authority and with intent to secure wrongful gain, while he was working as Village Administrative Officer, Pakkanadu Village, one day in January 1988, he demanded bribe of Rs.25/- from Thiru Marimuthu and 4 others for making endorsements in their applications for electricity power connection to their houses and thereby failed to maintain absolute integrity in Government service. 5. In the year 1994, the disciplinary proceedings were transferred to Deputy Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai at Chennai, and again transferred back to Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore. The proceedings were again transferred to Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Salem and then transferred back to Coimbatore. 6. 5. In the year 1994, the disciplinary proceedings were transferred to Deputy Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Madurai at Chennai, and again transferred back to Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore. The proceedings were again transferred to Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Salem and then transferred back to Coimbatore. 6. The petitioner was served with charge memo 28.04.1989. The prosecution in support of the charges examined 26 witnesses and also produced documentary evidence by way of 20 documents. 7. The petitioner examined 4 witnesses in defence, and submitted arguments on 29.09.2001. 8. The Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings held the petitioner guilty of the Charges. The copy of the report was furnished to the petitioner who filed objections to the enquiry report. The competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry tribunal and imposed punishment of removal from service. 9. The findings of the enquiry Tribunal is challenged on the ground that the charges against the petitioner were fabricated being based on the false complaint by the Villagers of Pakkanadu at the instigation of Thiru Madesh, who was influential person and also the former President of Pakkanadu Village Panchayat. 10. It was submitted by the petitioner, that evidence on record proved that the complaints against the petitioner were at the instigation of Thiru Madesh. As observed, the explanation of the petitioner was considered and rejected, and an order was passed vide R.C. No. SCR V(II)/6686/2001-8 dt.7.12.2001 of removal from service. 11. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order imposing punishment. But without waiting for the result of appeal, the Original application, was filed before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal which on transfer has been numbered as writ petition. 12. The writ petition is opposed by filing a counter, wherein the stand of the respondents, is that disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were conducted by the Tribunal for Disciplinary Proceedings, Coimbatore on the basis of detailed investigation conducted by the Director of Vigilance and Anti Corruption, regarding the allegation of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Thereafter, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, charges against the petitioner were held proved. 13. It is also the stand of the respondent, that objection as additional representation filed by the petitioner against enquiry proceedings were considered by the competent authority. Thereafter, on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, charges against the petitioner were held proved. 13. It is also the stand of the respondent, that objection as additional representation filed by the petitioner against enquiry proceedings were considered by the competent authority. The competent authority thereafter due consideration agreed with the finding recorded by the enquiry Tribunal, and therefore, keeping in view of the serious nature of the charges, decided to impose punishment of removal from service. 14. It is also the stand of the respondent that the competent authority took note of the fact that recording that Thiru Madesh, P.W.10, was an influential person that the witnesses were under influence of P.W.10, but it was on the appreciation of evidence that the petitioner was found guilty. The finding of fact thus was recorded on appreciation of evidence. 15. The submission of the respondent therefore is, that keeping in view of the serious charges levelled against the petitioner, no ground is made out to interfere with the order of removal. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer on the face of it, are perverse being contradictory in nature. 17. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the finding recorded by the Tribunal, wherein it is recorded that the defence of by the petitioner, that Thiru Madesh was highly influential person was correct as he had both political and other influence. It was pointed out that the enquiry officer recorded positive finding, that some of the witnesses had admitted this fact and there was also evidence to show, that Thiru Madesh was not getting along well with the petitioner. 18. It is recorded in the enquiry that Thiru Madesh was questioned by the police, on the complaint filed by the petitioner, for being called by his caste. 19. This fact was supported by some of the witnesses. The enquiry Tribunal therefore recorded positive finding, that it was established that the petitioner had made complaint to P.C.R. Wing Police and that an enquiry was conducted on the said complaint. However, no legal action was taken after investigation. 20. 19. This fact was supported by some of the witnesses. The enquiry Tribunal therefore recorded positive finding, that it was established that the petitioner had made complaint to P.C.R. Wing Police and that an enquiry was conducted on the said complaint. However, no legal action was taken after investigation. 20. The learned counsel also referred to the finding of the enquiry Tribunal, that it was clear that Thiru Madesh was enemical to the petitioner, which motivated him to drag the petitioner in net of vigilance. 21. The learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the finding of the enquiry officer, that on charge No.1 deposition of the witnesses showed that their cases were not dealt with by the petitioner, and it was on the presumption that petitioner that as petitioner had same role to play that he has been held guilty. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner also vehemently contended, that a positive finding was recorded that witnesses alleging payment of gratification to the petitioner were under the influence of Thiru Madesh, but inspite of this, the Tribunal proceeded, to hold the charge proved on probabilities. Therefore, finding of enquiry Tribunal can be safely said to be perverse, being contrary to the established evidence on record. 23. With regard to charge No.2 also, a positive findings were recorded, that though the witnesses under influence of Thiru Madesh, but still on the preponderance of probabilities, there was no material to discredit some of the witnesses, without pointing out which of the witness was believed and basis thereof. 24. In support of the contention that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can go into the question, whether findings recorded by the enquiry Tribunal are perverse, the reliance was placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of India and others [ (2006)5 S.C.C. 88 ] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down that:- "It is true that the jurisdiction of the court in judicial review is limited. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidences to prove the charge. Disciplinary proceedings, however, being quasi-criminal in nature, there should be some evidences to prove the charge. Although the charges in a departmental proceedings are not required to be proved like a criminal trial, i.e., beyond all reasonable doubts, 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 any 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. The report of the Enquiry Officer suffers from the aforementioned vices. The orders of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority which are based on the said Enquiry Report, thus, cannot be sustained. We have also noticed the way in which the Tribunal has dealt with the matter. Upon its findings, the High Court also commented that it had not delved deep into the contentions raised by the Appellant. The Tribunal also, thus, failed to discharge its functions properly. 25. The reliance was also placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others [ (2009)2 S.C.C. 570 ] wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to lay down as under: "(16.) Yet again in Jasbir Singh vs. Punjab Sind Bank ors. [ (2007) 1 SCC 566 ], this court followed Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors. (supra), stating: “(12.) In a case of this nature, therefore, the High Court should have applied its mind to the fact of the matter with reference to the materials brought on records. It failed so to do. (17.) Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. It failed so to do. (17.) Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the Criminal Court on the basis of self-same evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding 18 but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the Enquiry Officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the Enquiry Officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof. 26. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that enquiry as well as punishment awarded was liable to be quashed, on account of delay of more than 10 years in concluding the enquiry, as no explanation was forthcoming for the delay. 27. In support of this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in G. Adavan vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu [ (2010)2 M.L.J. 1007 ] wherein it was held as follows: "(15.) It is relevant to point out that in spite of the fact that the petitioner raised specific point of delay in the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents in the counter affidavit have not chosen to explain the delay except stating that the petitioner cannot take advantage of the delay and that the unexplained delay cannot be a ground to nullify the proceedings. If that is the stand of the respondents, as it is reflected in the counter affidavit wherein there is absolutely nothing to explain the delay, the said stand of the respondents is totally against the established judicial precedents. If that is the stand of the respondents, as it is reflected in the counter affidavit wherein there is absolutely nothing to explain the delay, the said stand of the respondents is totally against the established judicial precedents. (16.) In G. Anand vs. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chepauk, Chennai 5 and others [ 2006 (5) CTC 723 ] where the charge was relating to the functioning of a Special Tahsildar in 1994 for which disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 2005, I have quashed the charge memo on the ground that he was not a Special Tahsildar during the relevant period at all and there was unexplained and inordinate delay based on the law laid down by the Apex Court as stated above. The operative portion is as follows: "(18.) Even though it can be stated that in respect of the first charge that only relating to the filing of the counter affidavit in the first appeal in the year 2003 and therefore, the delay cannot be attributed, as I have stated, there is absolutely no implication of the petitioners and by no such of imagination it can be said that the petitioners would have been involved. Apart from the fact that in the absence of any particulars after passage of many years, it is not possible for the delinquent to reply effectively for the purpose of enforcing his right of defense in an effective manner." 28. The judgment of this Court in G. Adavan vs. Govt. of Tamil Nadu (supra) has no application to the facts of this case. It is now well settled that mere delay cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings or the order, unless prejudice is shown to have been caused to the delinquent because of the delay. 29. In this case, delay is well explained, as the enquiry was shifted to different enquiry officer on different times. The petitioner at the time of enquiry did not point out the prejudice if any caused, nor the learned counsel for the petitioner was able to show the prejudice caused to the petitioner on account of delay in concluding enquiry. 30. Admittedly, the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. 31. However, on consideration, I find this writ petition deserves to succeed. The finding by the enquiry Tribunal cannot be accepted being perverse. 30. Admittedly, the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. 31. However, on consideration, I find this writ petition deserves to succeed. The finding by the enquiry Tribunal cannot be accepted being perverse. No reason has been given to accept the evidence which was not specific inspite of the fact that the witnesses who were admittedly under the influence of Thiru Madesh who enemical to the petitioner and had a motive to falsely implicate the petitioner. 32. It is also well settled that the inference drawn by the enquiry Tribunal, which is not supported by the admissible evidence cannot be accepted, as the suspicion however high cannot be a substitute for legal probe. 33. Even though this Court does not sit in appeal to re-appraise evidence led before the enquiry Tribunal, but at the same time, in exercise of writ jurisdiction, it is always open to this Court to interfere with the findings which are perverse being based on no evidence. 34. The enquiry Tribunal was performing a quasi judicial function, therefore, it was the duty of the enquiry Tribunal to have recorded the finding of guilt by appreciating evidence and giving a findings based on evidence, which could be said to be free of any bias. 35. In this case, it may be noticed that on charge No.1 a positive finding was recorded that Thiru Madesh had a motive to drag the petitioner into the dragon net of vigilance. This assumes importance as the official work for which the petitioner was alleged to have been bribed was in fact processed by the Revenue Inspector, and the proposal/recommendation had also been forwarded by Thiru Magadevan to Tahsildar for grant of patta, in which petitioner had no role to play. 36. It has also been positively recorded that it was not the petitioner who prepared the proposal for grant of patta, but he was held guilty only on the ground that he had some say with respect of few cases without specifying the cases. 37. Thus, the finding on charge 1 is based on mere ipse dixit of the enquiry tribunal. 38. The findings on charge 1 can be safely be said to be perverse being based on no admissible evidence, specially when the witnesses admittedly were under the influence of Thiru Madesh. 39. 37. Thus, the finding on charge 1 is based on mere ipse dixit of the enquiry tribunal. 38. The findings on charge 1 can be safely be said to be perverse being based on no admissible evidence, specially when the witnesses admittedly were under the influence of Thiru Madesh. 39. Even on charge No.2, while recording that the witnesses, had not given money to the petitioner, and that the witnesses who deposed against the petitioner belonged to one family who had grudge against the petitioner, being under the influence of Thiru Madesh. 40. The learned counsel for the petitioner, was right in contending that reading of the enquiry findings shows the findings to be contradictory. While positive finding was recorded that due to motive, the petitioner was falsely implicated by Thiru Madesh and at the same time, merely on presumption and suspicion, the charge was held to be proved against the petitioner. 41. The findings of enquiry Tribunal therefore, cannot be sustained in law, in view of averments and based on evidence which was admittedly motivated. 42. The order of removal being based on enquiry report, which is held to be perverse, also cannot be sustained in law. 43. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall also be entitled to consequential benefits flowing from this order. But no order as to costs.