Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order Se.Mu.Order No.ONa1/34806/99, dated 5.10.2001, with the consequential relief of reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner joined the service as Junior Assistant, on 21.5.1984. While working as Junior Assistant in the Office of the District and Employment, Tiruvallur, a charge memo was issued to him and he was directed to appear in the Office of the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption department. 3. The first charge against the petitioner was that he accepted bribe of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only) and the second charge against the petitioner was of demanding Rs.1,500/- (Rupees One Thousand and Five Hundred only) from Thiru.R.Ravi. 4. The petitioner denied the charges and accordingly, the matter was referred for holding of departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer, on appreciation of evidence, held the petitioner guilty of the charges. The competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice, proposing punishment of removal from service. After considering the explanation, submitted by petitioner to the show cause notice, major punishment of removal from service was passed against the petitioner. 5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order, on the ground, that the enquiry report is based on no evidence, thus being perverse, not sustainable in law. 6. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the findings of the Enquiry Tribunal, where, it was recorded that the Assistant Commissioner was summoned to produce the record to prove charges, but the Assistant Commissioner sent a reply, pointing out that the summon register was destroyed. The request of petitioner to cross examine the Assistant Commissioner was also declined by the enquiry officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the reply by the Assistant Commissioner, pointing out that the summon register was destroyed, shows, that there was no documentary evidence to prove the charge against petitioner. 7. The request of petitioner to cross examine the Assistant Commissioner was also declined by the enquiry officer. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the reply by the Assistant Commissioner, pointing out that the summon register was destroyed, shows, that there was no documentary evidence to prove the charge against petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to the findings of the Enquiry Tribunal, showing that Thiru.Soosai Raj was said to be the brother of complainant, who had paid Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand only) to the petitioner at his house for helping Thiru.Ravi to get his name transferred and that he had later on paid a sum of Rs.1,500/-(Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that it was proved on record that Thiru Soosai Raj was not the brother of the complainant, therefore, the enquiry Tribunal committed an error in accepting his statement in holding the charge to be proved. 8. It was also contended, that it was not open to the Enquiry Tribunal to accept the evidence of a tainted person, who had deliberately made a wrong statement, about his relationship with the complainant. 9. Learned counsel thereafter referred to the findings of the Enquiry Tribunal, showing that Thiru Soosai Raj had gone to the house of petitioner at T.Nagar to discuss the prospects of complainant getting a job, where he was informed to spend a sum of Rs.5,000/-(Rupees Five Thousand only). It was thus contended, that no positive evidence was led to prove this charge, for the reasons that Thiru. Ramalingam, who was said to have paid this amount, was not examined by prosecution. Reference was also made to the findings of the Enquiry Tribunal, recording that the petitioner had taken the witness to the Footwear Shop to return money. According to the petitioner, this fact was also not proved by positive evidence. 10. It was thus contended that in view of positive findings referred to above in the enquiry report, it is proved, that the findings are based on ipse-dixit of the enquiry Tribunal, thus are perverse. 11. According to the petitioner, this fact was also not proved by positive evidence. 10. It was thus contended that in view of positive findings referred to above in the enquiry report, it is proved, that the findings are based on ipse-dixit of the enquiry Tribunal, thus are perverse. 11. It is also contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the enquiry Tribunal has recorded the finding of guilt against petitioner by drawing presumption, on the basis of the two letters said to have been written by the petitioner, and by placing reliance on the statement of P.Ws.7 and 11. Though their statement could not be relied upon, for wrong projection, that they were brothers, after it was proved wrong. 12. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court does not sit in appeal over findings of the enquiry officer. It is also not open to this Court to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Tribunal merely because other view is possible. The finding of the Enquiry Tribunal show, that the findings are based on appreciation of evidence. 13. It is not disputed that P.Ws.7 to 11 supported the case of prosecution, and proved the fact, that the petitioner had taken bribe. The findings cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence as contended. The petitioner has not placed anything on record to prove any motive of witnesses to falsely implicate the petitioner. 14. The reading of the report of the Enquiry Tribunal shows, that it was submitted by taking into consideration each and every detail and it also gives reasons for not agreeing with the contentions raised by the petitioner. The finding further shows, that full opportunity was given to petitioner to defend himself. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, also contended that the order of removal from service, suffers from vice of non speaking order and is outcome of non application of mind. 16. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is also misconceived. The reading of impugned order shows, that the competent authority took into consideration the allegations against petitioner, and also took note of objections filed by petitioner to the enquiry report. Once the competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, it was not necessary to repeat those findings. The reading of impugned order shows, that the competent authority took into consideration the allegations against petitioner, and also took note of objections filed by petitioner to the enquiry report. Once the competent authority agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, it was not necessary to repeat those findings. The impugned order by no stretch of imagination, can be said to be non speaking order, as contended by learned counsel for the petitioner. 17. Learned counsel for the petitioner thereafter referred to G.O.Ms.No.405, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel-N) Department, dated 19.9.1990 to contend that the Government of Tamil Nadu had amended Rule 17(b)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, stipulating that it is necessary to consult the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC), before imposing an order of penalty. It was the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that amended rules, which stipulate that it was not necessary to consult the TNPSC, were not applicable to petitioner, as these were not to apply retrospectively. 18. This contention also cannot be accepted, as there is no material on record to show, that the person holding the post of Junior Assistant could be removed only with the consultation with the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. Even otherwise, this rule cannot be treated to be mandatory, as power to punish an employee vests with competent authority. 19. No merits. Dismissed. 20. No costs.