Judgment :- 1. Thiru T.Palanimuthu has filed this writ petition with the prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certioari, to quash the final order dated 15.05.2001 passed by the Commissioner, Cuddalore Municipality, imposing recovery of Rs.2,91,530/- (Rupees two lakhs ninety one thousand five hundred and thirty only) with the consequential relief of refund the amount recovered from the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned order. 2. It is not disputed that during pendency of this writ petition, petitioner died and legal representatives of the petitioner have been brought on record. 3. Late Sri.T.Palanimuthu joined service in the office of the Commissioner, Cuddalore Municipality. The petitioner was promoted as Junior Assistant on 28.04.1976. The petitioner was also allowed to serve in the Treasury as Sheroff for about six years from 1990 to 05.05.1996 and thereafter, the petitioner was again transferred to the revenue department. 4. It is pleaded in the affidavit that after two years of transfer, the petitioner was served with a memo pointing out that bonds submitted by the Contractors along with the tender quotation in the engineering section were not properly entered in the security bond register and were also not submitted for auditing, therefore, the petitioner being a Sheroff in the Treasury was responsible for missing security bonds. The petitioner was directed to give all the security bonds and to give explanation for the lapses within three days of the receipt of memo. 5. Thereafter, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, he was served with charge memo, and was placed under suspension on 11.09.1998. 6. The charges against the petitioner read as under: (1) Not submitting the Bonds which were in his custody for the auditing in 1996-1997. (2) Since the bonds were not submitted for auditing it is presumed that he had temporarily misappropriated them. (3) Since the applicant who was the clerk concerned has not submitted the bonds for auditing the joint Director of accounts sent a report to the Commissioner and thereby creating had name to the officers. (4) Dereliction of duty. (5) Disregard and contempt of the orders of higher officials, since no action was taken to produce the bonds irrespective of the service of the memo even before the receipt of the auditing report. (6) Due to the inability to return the Bonds when demanded by the Contractors the administration earned a bad name. 7. (4) Dereliction of duty. (5) Disregard and contempt of the orders of higher officials, since no action was taken to produce the bonds irrespective of the service of the memo even before the receipt of the auditing report. (6) Due to the inability to return the Bonds when demanded by the Contractors the administration earned a bad name. 7. The petitioner submitted his explanation dated 17.12.1998, but finding it to be not satisfactory, an enquiry officer was appointed by the respondent. In the enquiry, the enquiry officer did not examine any witness from the prosecution side to prove the charges. The enquiry officer straightaway called for explanation of the petitioner by treating the charges proved. The enquiry officer by not accepting the explanation submitted, held the petitioner guilty of misconduct. 8. The reading of the charges show that they are totally vague and lack material particulars. It was not possible for an employee to answer to such charges except to deny the charges. 9. Even though in the charges levelled against the petitioner, no amount was mentioned. The enquiry officer however, recorded that loss caused was to the tune of Rs.1,45,765/- (Rupees one lakhs forty five thousand seven hundred and sixty five only). In the punishment order passed, a sum of Rs.2,91,530/-(Rupees two lakhs ninety one thousand five hundred and thirty only) was shown to be recoverable from the petitioner. 10. The proceedings of the enquiry officer shows, that no prosecution witnesses were examined to prove charges. The enquiry officer simply recorded the charge and explanation submitted thereto by the petitioner, and thereafter proceeded to record that the petitioner found guilty. 11. The competent authority also blindly accepted the enquiry report without considering the explanation of the petitioner. 12. It is interesting to note here, that it is not disputed by the respondents, that the petitioner was relieved from duty as Sheroff from Treasury on 05.05.1996. Whereas, the charge against the petitioner was that as to why the security bonds which were said to be misplaced, were not submitted for auditing during the year 1996-1997, the period when the petitioner was not serving in the Treasury. 13. No explanation is also forthcoming for not taking action against other employees, i.e., predecessor and successor of the petitioner. 14. The respondents have not placed any materials showing, that any amount was paid by the Municipality to the Contractors, to prove loss. 15. 13. No explanation is also forthcoming for not taking action against other employees, i.e., predecessor and successor of the petitioner. 14. The respondents have not placed any materials showing, that any amount was paid by the Municipality to the Contractors, to prove loss. 15. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order, on the ground that the order on the face of it, is arbitrary, in view of the fact that the finding of guilt was recorded, without any evidence whatsoever, therefore the finding on the fact of it is perverse. 16. On consideration, I find force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Though normally, this Court does not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the enquiry officer, but at the same time, when finding recorded by the enquiry officer is found to be perverse, this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can interfere to set aside the findings. 17. The reading of the charge memo reproduced above, shows, that the allegations were vague, which could not be answered by the delinquent. Furthermore, as no material is placed on record to show, that the claim raised by the Contractor for refund of security bonds was served on the petitioner. 18. The enquiry officer further compounded the illegality by not examining any prosecution witnesses, and without recording any evidence oral or documentary in support of the charges, proceeded on presumption that charges were proved, on the presumption that it was for the petitioner to defend the charges. 19. The petitioner was straightaway asked to submit explanation to the charges and the explanation of the petitioner without assigning any reason, was rejected by way of non speaking order, recording a finding that the petitioner was found guilty of charges. 20. The competent authority also blindly accepted the enquiry report which on the face of it, is arbitrary, perverse, and thus, not sustainable in law. 21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the enquiry report cannot be sustained in law, so the consequential order passed by the competent authority on enquiry report. The punishment awarded cannot be sustained in law, being arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 22. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. 21. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the enquiry report cannot be sustained in law, so the consequential order passed by the competent authority on enquiry report. The punishment awarded cannot be sustained in law, being arbitrary being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 22. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside, and a writ in the nature of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to refund the amount recovered from the petitioner, within two months of the receipt of certified copy of this order. 23. The respondents are further directed to release death cum retirement benefits due to the petitioner within the time stipulated. No costs.