Judgment 1. The petitioner was working as Junior Assistant in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Pallipalayam, Namakkal District. He was entrusted with the work of remittance of Government money into the Treasury at Tiruchengode. The allegation against the petitioner was that in the month of January and February 1996, the amount was belatedly remitted on the next day or a few days later, after the amount was entrusted to him. 2. The details relating to the date on which the amount has to be remitted and the actual date of remittance and the amount involved are as follows: “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” “TAMIL” 1. “TAMIL” 9/96 22.1.96 23.1.96 2670/- “TAMIL” 10/96 23.1.96 25.1.96 4038/- “TAMIL” 11/96 25.1.96 29.1.96 4430/- “TAMIL” 12/96 29.1.96 30.1.96 11428/- “TAMIL” 15/96 1.2.96 8.2.96 5820/- “TAMIL” 20/96 8.2.96 9.2.96 7392/- “TAMIL” 23/96 13.2.96 15.2.96 6658/- “TAMIL” 25/96 15.2.96 19.2.96 7260/- “TAMIL” 27/96 19.2.96 26.2.96 9734/- “TAMIL” 1/96 (SLP) 26.2.96 9.4.96 28162/- “TAMIL” 2. “TAMIL” 15/96 30.1.96 1.2.96 5855/- “TAMIL” 23/96 9.2.96 13.2.96 7975/- “TAMIL” 25/96 13.2.96 15.2.96 2681/- “TAMIL” 27/96 15.2.96 19.2.96 5533/- “TAMIL” 29/96 19.2.96 26.2.96 6456/- “TAMIL” 30/96 20.2.96 26.2.96 4054/- “TAMIL” 31/96 22.2.96 26.2.96 3620/- “TAMIL” In those circumstances, a charge memo under rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued to the petitioner. 3. The crux of the allegation was that the petitioner failed to remit the amount entrusted to him on the same day and thereby he misappropriated the amount. 4. The petitioner gave his explanation that on the instructions of the Sub Registrar, the amount was remitted by the Record Clerk Mr. Thamarai Selvan, though as per records, the amount was entrusted to him. As per rules, two persons were to go to the Treasury at Tiruchengode to remit the amount. Since there was no Assistant in the office, the Sub Registrar directed the petitioner to carry out the work in the office. Hence, the amount was remitted by Mr. Thamarai Selvan and therefore, the petitioner could not be blamed for the same. 5. While so, an enquiry was ordered. The District Registrar (Audit) Namakkal was the Enquiry Officer. He gave his report dated 23.06.1997 stating that the charges were not proved. But the second respondent disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his proceedings dated 14.07.1997 and the petitioner was asked to make his views thereon. 6. 5. While so, an enquiry was ordered. The District Registrar (Audit) Namakkal was the Enquiry Officer. He gave his report dated 23.06.1997 stating that the charges were not proved. But the second respondent disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his proceedings dated 14.07.1997 and the petitioner was asked to make his views thereon. 6. After getting reply from the petitioner on the differed findings of the second respondent, the second respondent passed the impugned order dated 11.09.1997/06.10.1997 imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. 7. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the first respondent and the same was rejected by the first respondent in G.O.(2D) No.54, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 14.06.2002. 8. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 11.09.1997/06.10.1997 of the second respondent and G.O.(2D) No.54, Commercial Taxes Department, dated 14.06.2002 passed by the first respondent. 9. A reply affidavit is filed by the respondents seeking to sustain the impugned orders. 10. Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 11. Para 3 of the impugned order dated 11.09.1997/06.10.1997 of the second respondent reads as follows: “Here the Sub Registrar entrusts the remittance work to the accused officer. The Accused officer instead employs Thiru Thamaraiselvan as his agent to perform that duty on his behalf and for him. Hence the Accused officer is deemed to have committed the criminal breach of Trust. 2. The accused being entrusted with remittance duty omits to apprehend the delay in remittance done by his agent and thus suffers him to indulge in acts amounting to serious offence quite knowingly. Here the abetment of the illegal omission of an act amounts to an offence though the abetter is not bound to do that Act. 3. Since Thiru. C. Thamarai selvan is only expected to accompany the remitter as per the s.o.1523(2) the offence relating to the embezzlement made with the remittance money should be construed as if it was committed by the remitter. Here the agent cannot be implicated in the offence because he was not bound by any authorisation from the Sub Registrar or by any order to assist the accused in the remittance duty.” 12. Here the agent cannot be implicated in the offence because he was not bound by any authorisation from the Sub Registrar or by any order to assist the accused in the remittance duty.” 12. The impugned order proceeds on the basis that the remittance work was entrusted to the petitioner by the Sub Registrar and the petitioner contravened the direction issued by the Sub Registrar and entrusted the work to his subordinate Mr. Thamarai Selvan, the Record Clerk. But the fact is otherwise. Mr. Thamarai Selvan made a statement in the enquiry that he remitted the amount as per the directions of the Sub Registrar. It is also stated by Mr. Thamarai Selvan that the records revealed that the amount was entrusted to the concerned junior Clerk. But in fact, on instructions from the Sub Registrar, it was remitted by him alone. It is stated that there was shortage of employees. Hence, the Sub Registrar directed him to remit the amount at Tiruchengode and accordingly, he did the same. The statement made by Mr. Thamarai Selvan in the enquiry is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 13. More importantly, the concerned Sub Registrar wrote a report dated 05.09.1996 to the second respondent through the District Registrar, Namakkal. In the said report, he categorically stated that due to shortage of employees in his office, he directed Mr. Thamarai Selvan to remit the amount and retained the petitioner to carry out the work in the office. 14. In view of the statement made by Mr. Thamarai Selvan and taking into account the report of the Sub Registrar, I am of the view that the petitioner cannot be blamed for not remitting the amount at Tiruchengode, particularly when his superior officer directed him to carry out the work in the office. That is, the Sub Registrar categorically stated that the remittance work was entrusted to Mr. Thamarai Selvan alone and accordingly, he only remitted the amount. If at all if any allegation is made, the same could be made against Mr. Thamarai Selvan and not against the petitioner. Thus, the Enquiry Officer came to the correct conclusion based on the aforesaid evidence. But unfortunately, the second respondent disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The dissent view of the Disciplinary Authority is a perverse one and no prudent person could agree with the same. Thamarai Selvan and not against the petitioner. Thus, the Enquiry Officer came to the correct conclusion based on the aforesaid evidence. But unfortunately, the second respondent disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The dissent view of the Disciplinary Authority is a perverse one and no prudent person could agree with the same. Based on the differed view, the impugned order as well as the appellate orders were passed. Hence, I am of the view that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed. 15. Accordingly, the impugned orders are quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.