Judgment :- M. DURAISWAMY,J 1. The above Writ Appeals arises against the common order dated 03.03.2010 passed by the learned single judge made in W.P.Nos.19937 of 2004 and 24585 of 2007 2. The appellant filed writ petition in W.P.No.19937 of 2004 to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in G.O.(2D) No.136, Home (Courts-VI) Department, dated 23.3.2004 and to quash the same. The appellant also filed another writ petition in W.P.No.24585 of 2007 to issue a Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the respondent in G.O.(2D) No.233, Home (Courts-VI) Department, dated 28.6.2005 and to quash the same. 3. It is not in dispute that the appellant was appointed as Grade-II Assistant Public Prosecutor on 16.9.1978. Thereafter, he was promoted as Grade-I Assistant Public Prosecutor and subsequently he was promoted as Assistant Director of Prosecution. On 1.3.2000, the appellant joined as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram. During his tenure as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram, the appellant suffered a charge memo dated 21.12.2001, for the following charges:- Charge No.I : That while he was working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram during the period from 1.3.2000 to 10.6.2000, he abused his official position, authority and with corrupt motive habitually demanded illegal gratification for himself in the form of money from the Assistant Public Prosecutors from his Office Assistants and Police Officers who are working under his control and police officials in his jurisdiction in the following instances:- Instance. 1 : During the above said period between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, he demanded illegal gratification with the Assistant Public Prosecutors under his control to give money then and there when they come to his office and he insisted the Assistant Public Prosecutors to receive money from the advocates whom the Assistant Public Prosecutors to receiving the bail applications and to pay the money to him. Instance. 2 : During the period in between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, he by working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, demanded money from the Assistant Public Prosecutors, for the common fund to meet out the office expenditure of his office. Instance. Instance. 2 : During the period in between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, he by working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, demanded money from the Assistant Public Prosecutors, for the common fund to meet out the office expenditure of his office. Instance. 3 : During the period in between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, he while working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, he demanded with Thiru.Ganesh, his Office Assistant and with Thiru.G.Palanivel, Office Assistant and instructed them to collect money from the police officials ranging from Rs.500/- to Rs.1000/-for each CD file brought by the police for giving legal opinion/draft final reports, etc. Instance. 4 : During the period between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, he while working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, issued memos to the Assistant Public Prosecutors and he demanded money as illegal gratification for closing memos. Instance. 5 : During the period in between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, he while working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram, demanded colour TV sets from police officers for giving draft, final reports and opinions. Instance. 6 : During the period in between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, he while working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram, he insisted Thiru.Ganesan his Office Assistant to meet Panneerselvam, Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town Police Station and to collect a colour TV set for his entertainment at his office at Villpuram. Instance. 7 : During the period between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, he directed Thiru.Ganesan, Office Assistant to collect money from police station and to pay the room rent for the lodge where he was stayed. Instance. 8 : During the period between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, he while working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram, he demanded money from Thiru.Ravichandran, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-II, Kallakurichi, whenever he comes to his office and also he demanded money for the common fund which will be used for his expenditure. Instance. 9 : On 31.5.2000, while he was working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram, when Thiru.Amjat Ali, Assistant Public Prosecutor attended his (Delinquent Officer) monthly meeting at the office of the Assistant Director of Prosecution, he (Delinquent Officer) issued a memo to him for the absence at the court on 25.5.2000, when he (Delinquent Officer) have gone with his family on a private visit and he demanded money on the same day to close the memo. Instance. Instance. 10 : During the period between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, he issued memos to Thiru.Mathiyalagan, Thiru.Venugopal, Thiru.Narayanasamy, Thiru.Muugan and Tmt.Vijaya. All were worked as Assistant Public Prosecutors in Villupuram District and he instructed Thiru.Ganesan, Office Assistant to inform the Assistant Pubic Prosecutors to meet him with money so that he could close the memos. When Thiru.Ganesan, Office Assistant refused to do so, he himself demanded money directly from the Assistant Pubic Prosecutors to close the memos. Instance. 11 : During the period between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, while he was working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram, he demanded a colour Television from Thiru.Pannerselvam, Inspector of Police, Villupuram Town East, when he approached for legal opinion/draft final report in Crime No.111/2000 under sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC. Instance. 12 : During the period between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, while he was working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram, he demanded money and TV from Thiru.A.Jayavel, Grade-I P.C.937, who represented Villupuram West Police Station and he also demanded and instructed Jayavel Gr.I P.C.937 to settle the room rent of Lakshmi Lodge, where he stayed. When Jayavel had not met the demands, he delayed furnishing of opinion/final reports. Instance. 13 : During the period between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, while he was working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram, he demanded colour TV set with Subramaniam, Inspector of Police, Gingee Police Station and with E.Krishnamurthy, Special Sub Inspector of Valathi Police Station for himself. When Subramaniam, Inspector of Police, Gingee Police Station had sent his H.C.192, Swaminathan to get opinion draft final report from him, in Gingee Police station Crime No.194/99, u/s.147, 148, 427, 336, 332 and 323 IPC and other cases, he received the CD files and demanded money from him. When he prepared the above draft final report, he wrote on the above draft final report that the Inquiry Officer in the above case should met him at this office. He wrote on this with the intention of asking money when the Inquiry Officer comes to meet him. Charge No.II : That while he was working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram during the above said period, he was abusing his position and habitually harassing his Office Assistant and Assistant Public Prosecutors, working under his control in the following instances:- Instance. Charge No.II : That while he was working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram during the above said period, he was abusing his position and habitually harassing his Office Assistant and Assistant Public Prosecutors, working under his control in the following instances:- Instance. 1 : During the period in between 1.3.2000 and 10.6.2000, while he was working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram, he compelled Tmt.Kalyani, an Office Assistant, attached to Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-II, Judicial Magistrate Court, Kallakurichi to cook food for him at his office by issuing an order directing her to attend his office. He compelled her to attend his office even on the holiday for a purpose of cooking for him. He also threatened her by saying he will not regularise her job if she denied to cook for him. Instance. 2 : That he on 20.5.2000, while he was working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram, while Thiru.Ganesan, officer Assistant approached him to sanction Casual Leave to proceed to Sabari Malai, he directed Ganesan to go to Villupuram Police Station and to get Television for him. When Thiru.Ganesan refused to do so, he told him to remove the Maalai worn by Thiru.Ganesan as the symbol of Lord Iyyappa and told him that he will not grant leave to him, when Thiru.Ganesan, sentimentally felt disturbed and shocked, he lodged a report to Villupuram Police Station. Thereafter, he transferred him to Kallakurichi and suspended him subsequently as per his order in Rc.No.A.207/2000, dated 4.5.2000. While Deputy Director of Prosecution, Cuddalore, passed an order in B/814/2000, dt.10.5.2000, b revoking the suspension order issued by him, he opposed that order and issued a memo to Thriu.Ravichandran, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-II by questioning as how could he obey the orders of deputy Director of Prosecution, Cuddalore. Instance. While Deputy Director of Prosecution, Cuddalore, passed an order in B/814/2000, dt.10.5.2000, b revoking the suspension order issued by him, he opposed that order and issued a memo to Thriu.Ravichandran, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-II by questioning as how could he obey the orders of deputy Director of Prosecution, Cuddalore. Instance. 3 : While on 31.5.2000, when he was working as Assistant Director of Prosecution, Villupuram, all the Assistant Public Prosecutors of Villupuram District attended monthly meeting at his office and to receive the salary for the month of May 2000, the Assistant Public Prosecutors found that he has not claimed the salary for the month of May 2000 for Ravichandran, Assistant Public Prosecutor, Grade-II and for Ganesan, Office Assistant and Assistant Public Prosecutor Grade-II asked him the reason for not disbursing his pay, he told him falsely that his pay bill was audited and he had withheld the pay of Ravichandran and Ganesan by his letter No.B/178/2000, dated 23.5.2000. The Assistant Pubic Prosecutors of Villupuram District had protested for the above said action. The appellant submitted his explanation denying all the allegations made in the charge memo. However, having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the appellant, an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences, submitted his enquiry report finding that instance Nos. 6, 8, 11 and 12 in Charge No.1 as proved and instance No.13 in Charge No.1 as partly proved. The Enquiry Officer also found that all the 3 instances in Charge No.II were proved. Most of the charges relate to demand of money, demand of colour Television, etc. It is pertinent to note that before the Enquiry Officer, 27 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked. On the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer, by order dated 23.3.2004, the disciplinary authority viz., the respondent, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for 2 years with cumulative effect. Aggrieved over the order passed by the respondent, the appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.No.19937 of 2004 and the learned single Judge confirmed the order of the respondent and dismissed writ petition. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed writ appeal in W.A.No.2652 of 2010. 4. Aggrieved over the order passed by the respondent, the appellant filed the writ petition in W.P.No.19937 of 2004 and the learned single Judge confirmed the order of the respondent and dismissed writ petition. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed writ appeal in W.A.No.2652 of 2010. 4. When the appellant was working as Assistant Public Prosecutor, Perambalur, another charge memo dated 27.11.2003 was issued to him for the following charges: Charge I: Highly reprehensible conduct in sending xerox copies of the newspaper cuttings dated 30.01.02 5.2.02 and 6.3.02, purported to have been published in Tamil Daily "Thinathanthi" as enclosures to his petition dated 30.03.02 (seeking transfer to Thiruvallur or Chennai City), fabricating the news items by inserting a sentence in each news item by manipulation to appear as though the Honble Magistrate had stated that Thiru.A.Sankaran, had appeared and argues in the case, while there was no such sentence in the original news items which the delinquent officer had made deliberate and with honest intention in a misleading manner by manipulation of xerox copies. Charge II: Submitting claims of T.A. from 2.2.02 to 4.2.02 for attending the inquiry at the office of the Commissioner for Disciplinary Proceedings, Vellore, which was later verified to be false and that the Delinquent Officer had actually attended the inquiry only on 31.1.02 and 1.2.02 at Vellore. He acknowledged the charge memo on 3.12.2003 and submitted his explanation on 16.12.2003. The appellant submitted his explanation and the authorities having not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the appellant, conducted an enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after taking into consideration the evidences available on record, found both the charges as proved. Based on the report of the Enquiry Officer, by order dated 28.6.2005, the respondent imposed the punishment of censure. Aggrieved over the order passed by the respondent, the appellant filed the writ petition in W.P. No.24585 of 2007 and the learned single Judge confirmed the order of the respondent and dismissed writ petition. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed writ appeal in W.A.No.2653 of 2010. 5. Heard Mr. M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.N.Visagamoorthy, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant has filed writ appeal in W.A.No.2653 of 2010. 5. Heard Mr. M.Ravi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr.N.Visagamoorthy, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the order of the respondent is liable to be set aside on the ground that no written complaint was given; the charges were vague in respect of demand of money and no independent witness was examined. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also submitted that the respondent/disciplinary authority without applying his mind and also without giving any finding with regard to the charges framed as against the appellant and also with regard to the report of the Enquiry Officer, imposed the punishment on the appellant. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant relied upon the following judgments in support of his submissions: (i) 2009(1) SCC (L&S) 398 (Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others ) wherein the Honble Apex court held that as the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. (ii) 2011 (5) CTC 564 (Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank & Anr. ) wherein the Honble Apex court held that no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. (iii) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also relied upon an unreported judgment of a Division Bench of this court dated 3.7.2008 made in W.A.No.587 of 2008 (Secretary to Government, Environment and Forest Department, Chennai -9 and others .v. M.Subramanian) wherein this court held that departmental enquiry initiated against the delinquent was bad from the very inception inasmuch as it purported to proceed on vague charges. 8. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the Enquiry Officer has categorically found that instance Nos. 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 in charge No.I were proved and instance No.13 in charge No.I was partly proved and in respect of Charge No.2, all the 3 instances were proved against the appellant. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that the Enquiry Officer also found that both the charges framed against the appellant on 27.11.2003 were proved. 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 in charge No.I were proved and instance No.13 in charge No.I was partly proved and in respect of Charge No.2, all the 3 instances were proved against the appellant. The learned Government Advocate also submitted that the Enquiry Officer also found that both the charges framed against the appellant on 27.11.2003 were proved. The learned Government Advocate further submitted that the order passed by the respondent are just and proper and the orders of the learned single Judge does not warrant any interference by this court. 9. It is not in dispute that during the course of enquiry, 27 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked. After taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding that instance Nos. 6, 8, 9, 11 and 12 in charge No.I were proved and instance No.13 in charge No.I was partly proved. The Enquiry Officer also found that all the 3 instances in Charge No.2, were proved. Similarly, in the other charge memo dated 27.11.2003, the Enquiry Officer found that both the charges were proved. We are conscious of the fact that this court cannot re-appreciate the evidence in the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India 10. The Enquiry Officer has filed the enquiry report after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that no independent witness was examined cannot be sustained. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the charges framed as against the appellant are vague, therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. On a reading of the charges framed as against the appellant, it could be seen that the charges are specific and clear. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the charges are vague is also liable to be rejected. Accordingly, the same is rejected. 12. There is no dispute with regard to the legal propositions laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. However, the facts and circumstances of the case differs from the case on hand. Therefore, the above judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. 12. There is no dispute with regard to the legal propositions laid down in the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. However, the facts and circumstances of the case differs from the case on hand. Therefore, the above judgments are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Enquiry Officer has not applied his mind and mechanically filed the enquiry report. On a reading of the enquiry report in both the matters, it could be seen that the Enquiry Officer has discussed each and every point after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences. The Enquiry Officer has not mechanically filed his report finding that all the charges are proved. In fact, the Enquiry Officer found that some of the charges were not proved. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Enquiry Officer has passed the order without applying his mind. The Enquiry Officer has applied his mind and submitted a detailed report. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no written complaint as against the appellant before the issuance of charge memo. For issuance of charge memo, no prior written complaint is required under law. The learned single Judge has rightly rejected the said contention as not sustainable. 15. However, we see merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the impugned orders of the respondent/disciplinary authority suffers from non application of mind. Though 27 witnesses were examined and 13 documents were marked before the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report with regard to the charges framed as against the appellant in a detailed manner, the respondent/disciplinary authority, without applying his mind, imposed the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect for the charge memo dated 21.12.2001 and imposed the punishment of censure for the charge memo dated 27.11.2003. It is needless to say that the respondent, being the disciplinary authority, ought to have applied his mind before imposing punishment on the appellant. The respondent has not given any finding in his order for imposing punishment on the appellant. It is needless to say that the respondent, being the disciplinary authority, ought to have applied his mind before imposing punishment on the appellant. The respondent has not given any finding in his order for imposing punishment on the appellant. Except the finding recorded by the respondent in the penultimate paragraphs in both the orders, there is no finding given by the respondent with regard to the charges framed against the appellant and also with regard to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. It is the duty of the respondent/disciplinary authority to give go into the merits of the report of the Enquiry Officer, to give findings with regard to the charges and then come to a conclusion before imposing any punishment on the appellant. Since the punishment imposed on the appellant by the respondent are not major punishments, the learned single Judge did not go into the merits of the orders passed by the respondent. Therefore, the learned single Judge confirmed the orders of the respondent. 16. Since we are of the considered view that the respondent has not applied his mind and has not given any independent finding with regard to the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer regarding the charges framed against the appellant, the orders of the respondent are liable to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned orders dated 23.3.2004 and 28.6.2005 passed by the respondent are set aside. In view of the same, the common order of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.Nos.19937 of 2004 and 24585 of 2007 is also set aside. 17. In the result, the writ appeals are allowed and the matters are remanded back to the respondent with a direction to the respondent to decide the matters afresh after taking into consideration the materials available on record and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. We make it clear that the respondent shall decide the matter afresh on merits and in accordance with law based on the oral and documentary evidences available on record. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.