ORDER : This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 14 November, 2007, on the file of the first respondent, rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner, without considering the merits of the matter. THE FACTS : 2. The fourth respondent initiated proceedings against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on allegation that he gave false assurance to a handicapped person to secure a government job and took Rs.250/- from him and thereby, misused his official power. The explanation submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the fourth respondent submitted a report holding that the charges were proved. Thereafter, the fourth respondent passed an order on 29 March, 2004, imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. The said order was unsuccessfully challenged before the third and second respondents. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a statutory appeal before the first respondent. 3. The first respondent dismissed the appeal without supplementing reasons. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with this Writ Petition. 4. The fourth respondent filed a counter-affidavit, wherein it was indicated that in departmental enquiry, the delinquent officer should prove his innocence. According to the fourth respondent, since the petitioner failed to prove that he did not commit the misconduct, the first respondent was correct in dismissing the appeal. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents. ANALYSIS: 6. The fourth respondent issued a charge memo invoking Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, on the basis of a complaint preferred by a physically handicapped person. According to the complainant, the petitioner demanded and received a sum of Rs.250/- as bribe under the guise of procuring employment to him. Before the Enquiry Officer, the complainant has given a statement that the petitioner has not received money from him. According to the complainant, somebody else took money from him and it was not the petitioner. The complainant was not examined before the Enquiry Officer. Since his whereabouts were not known, the mother of the complainant was examined as a witness. She pleaded ignorance. Even thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted a positive report against the petitioner. 7. According to the complainant, somebody else took money from him and it was not the petitioner. The complainant was not examined before the Enquiry Officer. Since his whereabouts were not known, the mother of the complainant was examined as a witness. She pleaded ignorance. Even thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted a positive report against the petitioner. 7. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment on the strength of the enquiry report. Though several contentions were taken up by the petitioner, none of those contentions were considered by the first appellate authority. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, by way of a non-speaking order, rejected the appeal. 8. The fourth respondent wanted to re-write the service jurisprudence. According to the fourth respondent, in departmental enquiry, it is the duty of the delinquent officer to prove that he was not guilty. The fourth respondent further contended that the petitioner failed to prove that he was not guilty and as such, minimum punishment was imposed on him after following due process of law. 9. The petitioner has taken up a contention that the complainant failed to appear before the Enquiry Officer. The complainant himself has given a letter to the Enquiry Officer saying that money was not paid to the petitioner. The authorities below have considered the said letter as one given by the complainant at the instance of the petitioner. There was no evidence to prove the said fact. These vital factors have not been considered by the first respondent. I am, therefore, of the view that the issue requires fresh consideration by the first respondent. DISPOSITION: 10. In the result, the order dated 14 November, 2007 is set aside. The matter is remitted to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The first respondent is directed to consider the enquiry report, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the first appellate authority and pass final orders on merits and as per law. Such exercise shall be completed, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. In the upshot, I allow the Writ Petition. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.