Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order Na.Ka.No. D4/51418/2001 dated 07.05.2002, imposing minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant through Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission (TNPSC) on 30.09.1974 and promoted to the post of Assistant on 10.05.1977. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as Deputy Tahsildar on 06.12.1992 and Tahsildar on 03.02.1997. 3. The petitioner was served with charge memo under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules on the following charges. "CHARGE :-1 That he has not utilised the funds of Rs.10 lakhs, 7.8 lakhs and 4 lakhs for the construction of hostels for Boys & Girls of Adi Dravidars, Graveyards and Pathway to Graveyards for the Adi Dravidars for the running financial year. CHARGE :-2 That he had sent proposals for the land acquisition proceedings to the office of the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer and when they were checked on field verification by the Distict Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer, it was found that his reports were not fullfledged reports and they were prepared in a half-backed manner without even proper enquiry and thus he was negligent in discharging his duties. CHARGE :-3 When there was a meeting with the District Revenue Officer on 11.12.2001, regarding the land acquisition proceedings, he was asked to produce the particulars regarding the following three lands, but which have not been produced by him so far:- i. Vellakkalpatti – S.F.No.1/7A to the extent of 1.70.0 Hec. ii. Vittamanaickanpatti – S.F.No.114/1, 2A to the extent of 1.3.5. Hec. iii. The pendency of the cases regarding the land acquisition proceedings CHARGE :-4 That he has not sent the daily reports to the Office of the District Adi Dravidar Welfare Officer and hence his works could not be able to be inspected. CHARGE :-5 That enhancement of the compensation sanctioned in respect of the lands mentioned in Annexure – 2 was awarded. But immediate reports were not sent on the enhanced compensation by the applicant which the Govt., to pay heavy interest on the enhanced compensation." 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation, by taking defense, that the petitioner had acted under instructions of his superior, therefore, he could not be held guilty of negligence. But immediate reports were not sent on the enhanced compensation by the applicant which the Govt., to pay heavy interest on the enhanced compensation." 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation, by taking defense, that the petitioner had acted under instructions of his superior, therefore, he could not be held guilty of negligence. The explanation submitted by petitioner was not accepted by the competent authority and minor punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effective was imposed. 5. Though the petitioner had the remedy of appeal, but the petitioner chose to challenge the order of punishment, by invoking the jurisdiction of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal Act. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended, that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, as the respondents have failed to apply mind to the reply, submitted by petitioner, wherein specific stand was taken, that the petitioner had acted strictly in accordance with the instructions of the superiors, therefore, in absence of any allegation against the superior officer, the petitioner could not be singled out. 7. On consideration, I find no force in this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court cannot substitute the opinion of competent authority. The charges against petitioner was of negligence. In absence of any positive evidence, showing instructions by the higher authority, directing the petitioner to act in a particular manner, the explanation of petitioner cannot be accepted, that is what has been done by the competent authority. It is also well settled, that merely because other view is also possible, cannot be the ground to interfere with the order passed by the competent authority, as all allegations made against petitioner clearly show, that petitioner was guilty of negligence. 8. No merits. Dismissed. 9. No costs.