Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking an order in the nature of the writ of certiorari, calling for the records pertaining to the impugned order, dated 31.05.2004 made in Na.Ka.A1/55377/97 on the file of the third respondent and Order in Na.Ka.service.5(2)/103617/2004, dated 19.02.2005 on the file of the second respondent and G.O.(T) No.439, Revenue Department, dated 22.06.2006 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal. 2. A charge memo, dated 09.07.1997 was issued on the petitioner, while he was working as V.A.O at Koonimedu Village in Tindivanam Taluk, Villupuram District, under rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred as "the Rules") for certain alleged acts of misconduct in respect of grant of flood relief to the victims of 1996 in ward number 3 of Tindivanam Taluk. The charges were denied by the petitioner herein by his reply. Having not satisfied with the reply, enquiry was ordered and as per order, dated 03.05.1999 passed by the District Collector, Villupuram, the third respondent herein, conducted enquiry and held that the charges were proved and the petitioner was directed to pay 70% of the alleged loss to the tune of Rs.31,500/- and also awarded punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect for not performing his duties properly. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal, before the second respondent herein. 3. The Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue Administration, Chennai, the second respondent herein, by order, dated 14.12.1999 in Ser.v(2)/48883/99 held in paragraph numbers 5 and 6 of the said order that originally the loss to the Government had been arrived at Rs.9,500/-against the petitioner and while framing charges, subsequently, the amount of loss was stated at Rs.31,500/-, however while passing final orders for the very same delinquency, double punishments were imposed, one is recovery of 70% of the total sum of Rs.31,500/-and also stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. With the aforesaid findings, the second respondent set aside the order passed by the third respondent herein. According to the second respondent, it was a double punishment on the delinquent official, hence, the same was not sustainable. With the aforesaid findings, the second respondent set aside the order passed by the third respondent herein. According to the second respondent, it was a double punishment on the delinquent official, hence, the same was not sustainable. On the said ground, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the District Collector, Villupuram, by the second respondent for fresh disposal from the stage where the error pointed out was crept in. Subsequently, another charge memo, dated 18.03.2000 was issued by the third respondent. As per the annexure of the memo, four charges were stated against the petitioner, though as per the earlier charge memo, only three charges were framed against the petitioner. After the remand it is seen that one more charge was framed by the third respondent for framing one more charge against the petitioner, there is no acceptable reason given by the third respondent. 4. On enquiry, the third respondent held that all the charges levelled against the petitioner have been proved and directed the petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.31,500/- for the alleged loss caused to the State. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue, the second respondent herein. By order, dated 19.02.2005, the second respondent confirmed the order passed by the third respondent and dismissed the appeal. Against which, the petitioner herein preferred revision before the first respondent. By G.O.(T) No.439, Revenue Department, dated 22.06.2006, the first respondent confirmed the order passed the Appellate Authority and dismissed the revision preferred by the petitioner herein. Aggrieved by which, this writ petition has been preferred. 5. The charges levelled against the petitioner is that he had caused loss to the tune of Rs.31,500/- by improperly submitted Form 20, based on the same, the District Collector, Villupuram, third respondent herein, provided Flood Relief to various persons who have tiled houses and also not eligible for the relief. In the charge memo dated 10.08.2000, it is stated that one Kuppusamy, Sl.No.6 received Rs.500/-twice, similarly Sl.No.26 Chockkammal had received Rs.500/-without any damage being sustained by her and similarly, 11 persons (Sl.Nos. 11, 15, 28, 35, 36, 49,55,59,19,30 and 51 in Form-20) having tiled houses received Rs.500/-each towards flood relief and one Vimala (Sl.No.33) got Rs.1000/- and three other persons, who were Government Servants received Rs.500/- each. 11, 15, 28, 35, 36, 49,55,59,19,30 and 51 in Form-20) having tiled houses received Rs.500/-each towards flood relief and one Vimala (Sl.No.33) got Rs.1000/- and three other persons, who were Government Servants received Rs.500/- each. However, no further details were given to show that the loss caused to Government was either Rs.9,500/- or Rs.31,500/-and further, as per the order imposed, punishment of a sum of Rs.31,500/-was imposed by the third respondent and that was confirmed by other respondents. In the copy of the charge memo, the said amount has been mentioned as Rs.32,000/-. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inconsistency in the plea of the respondents, in respect of various amounts stated by them inconsistently as Rs.9500/-, 31500 and 32000/-. Earlier in the order dated 14.12.1999 passed by the second respondent, it was specifically stated that originally, the alleged loss caused to the Government had been stated at Rs.9,500/-however while framing the charges, the loss was stated at Rs.31,500/-, based on which final orders were passed for Rs.31,500/-. 6. Having considered the patent inconsistency in the order and also the punishment imposed (1) recovery of an amount of Rs.31,500/-and (2) stoppage of increment for two years, the second respondent held in the earlier order, that it was a double punishment and accordingly, set aside the order passed by the third respondent and the matter was remitted back to the third respondent / District Collector for fresh disposal. The third respondent, has subsequently passed impugned order, dated 31.05.2004, whereby directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.31,500/-stating that it was the loss incurred by the Government, however, no stoppage of increment was imposed on the petitioner, as directed by the earlier order. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner and no witness was examined, after the remand, from the fact that there was no documentary evidence to show that the petitioner caused any loss to the Government to the tune of R.31,500/-. This Court, having considered the submissions, directed the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the original records and the enquiry report for verification and for production of the same the matter was adjourned. 8. This Court, having considered the submissions, directed the respondents 1 to 3 to produce the original records and the enquiry report for verification and for production of the same the matter was adjourned. 8. However, the learned Additional Government Pleader in the subsequent hearing submits that the original records were destroyed after the departmental enquiry and therefore, the same could not be produced before this Court for verification. It cannot be disputed that the respondents are empowered to take legal action against the petitioner and impose punishment under rule 17 (b) of the Rules. However, they should follow the principles of natural justice to establish that the petitioner had caused loss to the tune of Rs.31,500/- to the Government and liable to be proceeded under rule 17 (b) of the Rules. In the instant case, there is no material or evidence available to show that the petitioner had caused loss to the tune of Rs.9,500/-as stated in the earlier memo or Rs.31,500 /- as per the subsequent memo issued by the third respondent. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was allowed earlier by the Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue (Administration), vide order, dated 14.12.1999, while setting aside the order passed by the third respondent, the matter was remitted back for fresh disposal by the third respondent. However, even after remitting back by the second respondent, it was not clarified by the third respondent in his impugned order, dated 31.05.2004, as to how one more additional charge was framed after the remand and what was the evidence available to establish the charges already levelled against the petitioner, however, the alleged loss was originally stated at Rs.9,500/-and subsequently at Rs.31,500/- and at one place, Rs.32,000/-. 9. As contended by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, to establish the charges levelled against the petitioner there is no evidence available on record. The impugned orders do not disclose as to how the liability on the petitioner was established. It is seen that no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner while imposing the punishment. Merely by deleting the punishment of stoppage of increment, the third respondent has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.31,500/- stating that he has caused loss to the Government, as that of the earlier order, that was set aside by the second respondent. Merely by deleting the punishment of stoppage of increment, the third respondent has directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.31,500/- stating that he has caused loss to the Government, as that of the earlier order, that was set aside by the second respondent. Even in the impugned order, there is no details available for the alleged amount of Rs.31,500/-. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was only a Village Administrative Officer and, as there was Minister's visit, he was asked to supervise the preparation of food to the people who were affected by Flood in the Taluk. However, in the mean time, an Enumeration list was prepared stating the affected persons that was prepared by some other official, wherein the petitioner was asked to sign and the same was scrutinized by the Revenue Inspector, concerned Tahsildar and other officials, however, he was made as a scapegoat. He further submitted that there is no supporting material to show that the petitioner had caused any loss to the tune of Rs.31,500/-or any other amount to the Government. Even after the remand made by the second respondent, no additional evidence was adduced to substantiate the charges levelled against the petitioner. 10. It cannot be disputed that in a departmental proceeding, the charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt and even preponderance of probability is sufficient to establish the delinquency of an official. However, there must be some evidence to establish the delinquency and such evidence must be legally acceptable, otherwise, the Court can take a view that the delinquency has not been prima facie established in the departmental proceedings. 11. In the instant case, it is seen that the impugned order has not been passed based on any evidence. Even the respondents are not certain about the alleged amount of loss caused to the State and the amount claimed was also not supported by any evidence. In those circumstances, the earlier Principal Commissioner and Commissioner of Revenue (Administration) has set aside the order passed by the third respondent. However, without complying with the direction given in the order of remand, by framing one more issue and deleting a portion of punishment of stoppage of increment, the third respondent has passed a similar orders as that of the earlier order, which is not legally sustainable. However, without complying with the direction given in the order of remand, by framing one more issue and deleting a portion of punishment of stoppage of increment, the third respondent has passed a similar orders as that of the earlier order, which is not legally sustainable. Admittedly, there is no allegation of misappropriation or corruption charges against the petitioner herein. It is not proper on the part of the respondents to state before this Court that the evidences, such as enquiry report etc., were destroyed, while the writ petition is pending. This Court cannot appreciate the improper procedure being followed by the respondents in destroying the material papers after the enquiry, in view of the pendency of the case. 12. On the aforesaid circumstances, to meet the ends of justice, the writ petition has to be allowed. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned orders passed by the respondents are set aside. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs.