Judgment 1. The petitioner while working as Co-operative Sub Registrar, Package, Ammapettai, Thanjavur district was placed under suspension by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kumbakonam on 24.04.2001. In view of the order of suspension, the petitioner was not allowed to retire, so as to hold departmental enquiry against the petitioner for serious misconduct. 2. The petitioner was issued a charge memo under Sec.17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D & A) Rules by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvarur on the following charge: "That by his wilfull negligence as Special Officer of Agriculture Producers Co-operative Marketing Societies, Mannargudi, heavy stock deficit and that he was responsible for deficit. That he fail to discharge of duties and responsibilities properly." 3. The explanation submitted by the petitioner to the charge memo was not found to be satisfactory, and enquiry officer was appointed to conduct enquiry. 4. It is submission of the petitioner that enquiry officer did not examine any witnesses to prove the charge, and without any evidence, the enquiry officer submitted a report to the competent authority holding the petitioner guilty of the charge. 5. The petitioner was issued show cause notice along with the enquiry report. The petitioner did not file explanation within the time stipulated and asked for further time to file objections to the enquiry report. 6. The competent authority by agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer, imposed a punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 29.11.1999. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment was also dismissed. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order of punishment, on the ground that the finding recorded by the enquiry officer are totally perverse as these are based on no evidence, therefore not sustainable in law and the impugned order passed on the basis of the defective enquiry report also cannot be sustained in law. 8. The learned counsel for the State was directed to produce enquiry file to verify the stand of the petitioner that the enquiry officer had not examine any witnesses and there being without any evidence, recorded finding of guilt. 9. The learned Addl. Govt. Pleader on verification of the record is unable to dispute the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the enquiry finding is based on no evidence, thus perverse. 10. 9. The learned Addl. Govt. Pleader on verification of the record is unable to dispute the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the enquiry finding is based on no evidence, thus perverse. 10. It is well settled that enquiry officer is under legal obligation to record the evidence in support of the charge, to record the findings as he performs quasi judicial functions. In absence of any evidence, no finding of guilt can be recorded. The finding recorded on the basis of no evidence is perverse, thus not sustainable in law. The impugned order based on the enquiry report which is held to be perverse, is also not sustainable in law. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to consequential benefits, arising from this order. No cost.