Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order of removal from service passed vide G.O.Ms.No.89, Commercial Tax (H1) Department dated 27.04.2004. 2. The petitioner joined the service on 05.06.1965 as Section Writer in the Registration Department and retired as District Registrar (Audit), Central Madras on 28.02.2003. 3. The petitioner was transferred from Valipandapuram to Panrutti as Sub-Registrar, by way of mutual transfer, but the transfer was subsequently cancelled. The petitioner challenged the order of cancellation of his transfer before the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, wherein an interim order of stay was passed. 4. It is the submission of petitioner, that some of the departmental officials had ill-motive against the petitioner, due to that, they started interfering in the unblemished service of petitioner. The petitioner has not named any official, nor has impleaded anybody as party to this writ petition, against whom the allegations of ill-will are levelled. 5. The petitioner was placed under suspension, pending charge memo. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension by filing O.A.No.567 of 2003, which was allowed, and the order of transfer was set aside, which resulted in reinstatement of the petitioner in service on 27.02.2003. 6. The petitioner was not allowed to retire on attaining the age of superannuation, by placing him under suspension, and retaining in service, so as to hold departmental enquiry under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 7. The petitioner was served with a charge memo on the allegation, that the petitioner had received a sum of Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four Thousand only) from one Raju on 10.07.2000 for registering a sale deed, and thereafter on intervention of Lakshmi Narayanan, illegal gratification was returned to Raju. The statement in this regard was also recorded by the Vigilance Department. 8. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, which was not accepted and accordingly, an enquiry officer was appointed to look into the charges. The enquiry officer examined three witnesses and recorded their statement, and the witnesses were also cross examined by the petitioner. On appreciation of evidence, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charge. 9. 8. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, which was not accepted and accordingly, an enquiry officer was appointed to look into the charges. The enquiry officer examined three witnesses and recorded their statement, and the witnesses were also cross examined by the petitioner. On appreciation of evidence, the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charge. 9. It is the submission of petitioner, that the evidence was not recorded as per the procedure contemplated under the disciplinary proceedings, as the statement was not signed by the witnesses, therefore, the statement of those witnesses cannot be relied upon. This contention cannot be accepted as strict rule of evidence does not apply to departmental enquiry. 10. The matter was referred to the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, on the question of evidence as well as quantum of punishment and on receipt of the recommendation, the petitioner was imposed major penalty of removal from service. 11. The impugned order is challenged on the ground, that it is arbitrary, unjust and unfair, and that allegations of demanding and accepting bribe were totally false, as the quantum of the amount was not mentioned by PW1 in the complaint made to the higher authorities, and the oral evidence led before the enquiry officer, was contrary to the complaint filed earlier. 12. It is also stand of petitioner, that PW2 in the course of examination did not support the version, therefore, the enquiry officer committed error in accepting the statement. 13. It is also the case of petitioner, that PW2 had accepted in the statement, that he had not paid money as bribe to the petitioner. Furthermore, PW1 to PW3 had not signed the statement. From this, it is clear, that the statement was not correctly recorded. The petitioner also challenged the prosecution story to be violative of Rule 117 of the Registration Manual. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the impugned order of punishment cannot be sustained, as it is based on the findings of the enquiry officer, which are perverse, being based on no evidence. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was, that admittedly witnesses examined by the enquiry officer had not signed the statement, therefore, it could not be read in evidence, therefore, finding of the enquiry officer can be said to be based on no evidence, thus, perverse. 15. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was, that admittedly witnesses examined by the enquiry officer had not signed the statement, therefore, it could not be read in evidence, therefore, finding of the enquiry officer can be said to be based on no evidence, thus, perverse. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended, that the allegations levelled against the petitioner, were not capable of being accepted. Otherwise also, the statement of witnesses was contradictory, therefore, no reliance could be placed on the statement of witnesses to hold the petitioner guilty of charges. 16. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. This Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit in appeal. This Court cannot reappraise the evidence to come to a difference conclusion. Even if different conclusion can be arrived at, still it cannot be the ground to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer, unless the findings are perverse, which on appreciation of evidence, could not be taken. 17. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the findings of the enquiry officer are not based on correct appreciation of evidence, cannot be accepted, as on proved evidence, the view taken by the enquiry officer cannot be said to be not capable of being arrived at. The only question for consideration at this stage in this case is regarding the admissibility of evidence, as the witnesses had refused to sign the statement. 18. It may be noticed, that it is not in dispute, that the prosecution witnesses were examined by the enquiry officer and subjected to cross examination. The petitioner in his pleadings also placed reliance on the statement of those witnesses in the cross examination, to support the stand, that the allegations were not proved. This proves that the witnesses had in fact deposed before the enquiry officer, but under the influence of the petitioner, had refused to sign. In view of the fact, that strict rule of evidence is not applicable to departmental proceeding and enquiry officer is to follow the rule of natural justice, the evidence therefore was rightly considered to hold the petitioner guilty. 19. In view of the fact, that strict rule of evidence is not applicable to departmental proceeding and enquiry officer is to follow the rule of natural justice, the evidence therefore was rightly considered to hold the petitioner guilty. 19. Once it is an admitted position, that witnesses had deposed, but thereafter had refused to sign under the influence of the petitioner, it cannot be the ground to hold, that the findings, so recorded by accepting the evidence to be perverse or based on no evidence. 20. The proved charge against the petitioner is that of corruption, which is serious misconduct, therefore, the punishment imposed, also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charges. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in V.S. Senthil Kumar vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others, (2009) 2 MLJ 482 , to contend that keeping in view the length of service of petitioner, the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the proved charge. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The charge of corruption is serious misconduct, therefore the punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate. The judgment on which reliance has been placed by petitioner, has no application to the facts of the present case, as in the said case, the charge of demand and acceptance of money, as bribe was not proved, as in the said case, the enquiry officer had exonerated the petitioner of the charge, and the competent authority had disagreed with the enquiry officer. It was in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, that this Court held the punishment to be disproportionate, which cannot be a precedent to be applied in all cases of corruption. 22. The charge of bribe is very serious misconduct, for which punishment of removal from service cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charge. 23. For the reasonsstated above, finding no merits in this writ petition, it is ordered to be dismissed. No costs.