JUDGMENT : G.ARUL MURUGAN, J . This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 03.06.2024 in W.P.No.6839 of 2017, wherein the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the writ petitioner was set aside and the appellants were directed to settle the consequential benefits. 2 . The respondent herein while he was working as Tahsildar in Tambaram Taluk, was visited with the charge memo dated 02.03.2010 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1955 [hereafter referred to as “the Rules”] by framing three charges. The charges came to be issued mainly on the ground that the respondent had passed an order on 11.09.2002 for effecting change of register, based on the petition of one Thiru.K.Krishnan dated 16.08.2002 in respect of the Government lands measuring an extent of 10 acres in Survey No.657/1A2 of Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, which is classified as Sarkar Poramboku-Kazhuveli. 3 . The respondent submitted his reply on 30.06.2010 and not satisfied with the reply an enquiry officer was appointed. In the enquiry only one document that is the order dated 11.09.2002, was filed and no witnesses were examined. After completing the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted a report on 02.11.2010, holding that all the three charges have not been proved. 4 . However, since the respondent was to attain superannuation, by order dated 30.06.2011, he was placed under suspension and he was also not allowed to retire and retained in service in view of Fundamental Rules 56(1)(c). Thereafter the disciplinary authority deviated from the findings of the enquiry officer and issued notice dated 23.08.2011 to the respondent calling for his explanation, by recording the reasons for deviation in the Annexure. 5 . After receiving the further explanation from the respondent on 10.09.2011, the authority came to the conclusion that all the three charges framed against the respondent are proved and arrived at a provisional decision to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement. Pursuant to which, the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission were sought for and after receiving the views on 19.12.2011, the second appellant/disciplinary authority issued G.O.(3D) No.2 Revenue Ser.2(2) Department dated 03.02.2012, imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement. The respondent had preferred an appeal before the first appellant on 09.04.2012 and the appellate authority by G.O.(1D) No.388 Revenue Ser.2(2) Department dated 30.08.2016 had rejected the appeal. 6 . The respondent had preferred an appeal before the first appellant on 09.04.2012 and the appellate authority by G.O.(1D) No.388 Revenue Ser.2(2) Department dated 30.08.2016 had rejected the appeal. 6 . In the meantime, the second appellant also, by G.O.(2D) No.262 Revenue Ser.2(2) Department dated 17.08.2016 passed separate orders for reduction in pension of 33% permanently and also for recovery of Rs.25,000/- from his death-cum-retirement gratuity, in view of the punishment of compulsory retirement imposed. The penalty of reduction in pension has been challenged by the respondent in a separate writ petition. Assailing the orders of the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, the respondent preferred the writ petition in W.P.No.6839 of 2017. 7 . The writ court, by considering the fact that the respondent had acted only pursuant to the written instructions of the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration dated 27.06.2002 and also the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, dated 10.09.2002, wherein the respondent was instructed to carry out the changes in the village and taluk accounts, came to the conclusion that the charges against the respondent cannot be sustained and had interfered with the punishment imposed, thereby allowed the writ petition by setting aside the punishment. Aggrieved over the same, the Government has preferred the above appeal. 8 . Mrs.V.Yamuna Devi, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the appellants contended that in respect of the valuable lands measuring 10 acres belonging to the Government, which is classified as Kazhuveli Poramboke, the respondent who had no powers to grant patta passed orders on 11.09.2002 for a change of entry, thereby committed a serious offence, for which disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated by issuing a charge memo framing appropriate charges. 9 . It is her vehement contention that already specific orders have been passed by the Settlement Commissioner on 14.06.2001 instructing all the District Collectors of nearly five Districts, that some of the previous Assistant Settlement Officers of Thiruvannamalai have erroneously passed orders under various abolition acts and the Tahsildars have been instructed not to give effect to those orders in the village and taluk accounts. When such a standing instruction of the superior official was available, the respondent Tahsildar had deviated from the same and indulged in the malpractice by passing orders for mutation of the registry to enable the private party to usurp the Government lands. 10 . When such a standing instruction of the superior official was available, the respondent Tahsildar had deviated from the same and indulged in the malpractice by passing orders for mutation of the registry to enable the private party to usurp the Government lands. 10 . The learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the reply submitted by the delinquent was considered and since it is not convincing, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the charges are proved and for the proven charges, after obtaining the views of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. 11 . It is her contention that though serious charges warrant a punishment of dismissal from service, still the disciplinary authority had taken a lenient view and had imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement. When the punishment had also been upheld by the appellate authority, the writ court had reappraised the evidence and had come to the conclusion that the charges were not proved, only by relying on the two communications of the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration and District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram. 12 . She further contended that the writ court exercising the power of judicial review is not permitted to reappraise the evidence and when the enquiry conducted is found to be proper, then the disciplinary authority is vested with the power of imposing appropriate punishment. The writ court cannot substitute its view by appreciating the documents when the disciplinary authority has found that the respondent has deviated from the standing instructions regarding not to give effect to any of the erroneous orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officers, Thiruvannamalai and moreover, the respondent had no power to deal with the subject lands. In such circumstances, the order of the writ court in interfering with the punishment is erroneous, she contended and sought for indulgence of this Court. 13 . Per contra, Mr.S.Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.J.Melwil Jabaz, appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent who is a Tahsildar, is bound to obey the directions of the higher officials that too, the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Revenue Officer. 13 . Per contra, Mr.S.Vijaya Kumar, learned Senior Counsel, for Mr.J.Melwil Jabaz, appearing for the respondent contended that the respondent who is a Tahsildar, is bound to obey the directions of the higher officials that too, the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Revenue Officer. He contended that when there are two written instructions from the above two authorities instructing the respondent to carry out the changes of entry in the records, particularly mentioning the application, survey number and the land details, the respondent who had carried out the instructions, which he is legally bound to, cannot be charged with any violation and the very disciplinary proceedings initiated by issuance of the charge memo are baseless. 14 . Learned Senior Counsel further contended that when the Government has not chosen to initiate any proceedings as against the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration and District Revenue Officer who had instructed the respondent to carry out the changes and were instrumental in the orders being passed, the selective proceedings that are sought to be taken against the respondent leaving out the actual persons, who were the reason for the change of entry cannot be sustained. 15 . It is his further contention that only after the files were produced and after being satisfied with the two written communications issued by the superior officials, namely, the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration and District Revenue Officer, specifically instructing the respondent to carry out the changes, the writ court had come to the conclusion that the very initiation of the charges against the respondent is baseless and thereby interfered with the proceedings and set aside the punishment, which is perfectly justified and needs no interference in this appeal. 16 . Heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. 17 . The respondent was working as Tahsildar in the Revenue Department of Tambaram Taluk. On the allegations that he had passed orders on 11.09.2002 in the application submitted by one K.Krishnan dated 16.08.2002 to effect change in register for 10 acres of land in Survey No.657/1A2 in Pallikaranai Village of Tambaram Taluk, which is classified as Sarkar Poramboke - Kazhuveli, a charge memo came to be issued on 02.03.2010 under 17(b) of the Rules. 18 . 18 . The following three charges were framed:- “Charge No.1: Thiru.S.Manoharan, while working as Tasildar, Tambaram has approved and passed orders on 11.9.2002, to effect change of registry on the petition of Thiru.K.Krishnan S/o.Kavalaikaran dated 16.8.2002 for 10.00 acres of lands in Survey Field No.657/1A2 in Pallikaranai village of Tambaram taluk, based on the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai in K.Dis B2/1138/A1, dated 20.7.2000. The land was classified as Kazhuveli poramboke in revenue records. The Assistant Settlement Officer has no powers to pass orders granting patta to the Government poramboke land in ryotwari villages that too a Kazhuveli poramboke for which Government alone is competent. Charge No.2: He has failed to obtain the order from the competent authorities before passing such orders on the petition of Thiru.Krishnan, Charge No.3: Thus he has failed to perform his official duties sincerely as expected of him and thereby violated Rule 20(1) of Tamilnadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973.” 19 . The main charge as against the respondent is that though the Assistant Settlement Officers of Thiruvannamalai, by order dated 20.07.2000 and others, have erroneously passed statutory orders under various abolition Acts wherein the conversion of lands was ordered, for Government lands without any powers, still the respondent has issued order dated 11.09.2002 effecting the change in the registers. The respondent had submitted a reply on 30.06.2010 and not being satisfied with the reply, the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer. 20 . The respondent had specifically submitted a detailed reply wherein he had stated that even though the application was submitted, the changes were not carried out by giving effect to the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer, dated 20.07.2000. But however, only after the instructions of the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration in N.Dis.J.C.Confl.9/2002 dated 27.06.2002 and the proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram in Letter L.D.No.54402/2002/N-1 dated 10.09.2002 were issued specifically instructing and directing the respondent to effect necessary changes in the village and taluk accounts in respect of the lands in Survey No.657/1A2 measuring 10 acres in Pallikaranai Village of Tambaram Taluk, the change was effected. 21 . 21 . The enquiry officer had considered the detailed reply submitted by the respondent and also after perusing the above proceedings from the file accepted the explanations of the delinquent officer, had given a finding that the fax communication dated 14.06.2001 of the Settlement Commissioner to the District Collector has not been properly communicated to the Tahsildar, Tambaram. Further the only communication that was available with the respondent Tahsildar was from his higher officials i.e., Joint Commissioner of Land Administration dated 27.06.2002 and the communication of the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram dated 10.09.2002, which mandated the delinquent respondent to pass the order. 22 . The enquiry officer further records that the respondent, being a subordinate, is not bound to question the validity of the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer in the absence of any communication made to him, when on the contrary there is a specific direction by the superior officials to carry out the change. Further, in pages 8 & 9 of the enquiry report, Folder No’s. II and III contain the list of exhibits produced in proof of the articles of charge, where the order dated 11.09.2002 in Taluk File alone is listed. Clause 3, contains the list of witness examined in proof of the charge, where it is marked as 'NIL' and further it contains the depositions of witnesses arranged in order in which they were examined and it also states as 'NIL'. 23 . From the enquiry report, it is evident that the disciplinary authority had not chosen to examine any witness in support of the charges in the enquiry proceedings. The fact remains that except the order dated 11.09.2002 passed by the respondent, no other documents have been filed on the side of the Department and no witnesses have been examined to prove the charges. As such, no evidence is available by which the charges were sought to be proved by the Department as they have not chosen to examine any of the witnesses or produce any other documents. 24 . The disciplinary proceedings are initiated as per Rule 17(b) of the Rules. As such, no evidence is available by which the charges were sought to be proved by the Department as they have not chosen to examine any of the witnesses or produce any other documents. 24 . The disciplinary proceedings are initiated as per Rule 17(b) of the Rules. Rule 17(b) is extracted hereunder:- “ 17 ( b )(i)Without prejudice to the provisions of the Pu b lic Servants' Inquiries Act, 1850 (Central Act XXXVII of 1850), in every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service or on a person holding a Civil Post under the State any of the penalties specified in items (iv), (vi), (vii) and (viii) in rule 8, the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegation, on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required, within a reasonable time to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires an oral inquiry or to be heard in person or both. An oral inquiry shall be held if such an inquiry is desired by the person charged or is directed by the authority concerned. Even if a person charged has waived an oral inquiry, such inquiry shall be held by the authority concerned in respect of charges which are not admitted by the person charged and which can be proved only through the evidence of witnesses. At that inquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted, and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the inquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing, refuse to call a witness. ....” 25 . Rule 17(b) mandates that even if a person charged has waived an oral inquiry, such inquiry shall be held by the authority concerned in respect of charges which are not admitted by the person charged and which can be proved only through the evidence of witnesses. ....” 25 . Rule 17(b) mandates that even if a person charged has waived an oral inquiry, such inquiry shall be held by the authority concerned in respect of charges which are not admitted by the person charged and which can be proved only through the evidence of witnesses. In that enquiry, oral evidence shall be adduced as to such of the allegations that are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses. As such, the rule mandates that when the delinquent has denied the charges, then it is for the disciplinary authority to produce the witnesses to establish the charge and the delinquent will have the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. 26 . At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma in 2024 INSC 564 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that since no evidence was relied on behalf of the Department in the enquiry proceedings, there is no escape from the conclusion that the enquiry report is based on no evidence whatsoever. Paragraphs 18 & 19 of the decision reads as follows: “ 18 . In addition thereto, we have gone through the enquiry report which has been placed on record with the appeal. We find that the very foundation of the impugned action i.e. the enquiry report suffers from a fatal lacuna which goes to the root of the matter thereby vitiating the proceedings. On going through the report, we find that the Enquiry Officer categorically noted (at page No.39 of the paper- book) that the prosecution neither listed nor produced any witness during regular hearing and that the prosecution case was closed with the consent of the Presenting Officer. 19 . Upon a pertinent query being put to Ms.Gusain in this regard, she candidly conceded that no witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution during the course of departmental enquiry which fact is also borne out from the enquiry report (Annexure P-1).” 27 . In the above decision the Hon’ble Court had also referred to the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. In the above decision the Hon’ble Court had also referred to the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 , wherein it was categorically held that even in a case of ex parte enquiry, it is essential that the Department must lead evidence of witnesses to bring home the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. 28 . Again, in the case of Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the enquiry proceedings conducted against the delinquent pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty were totally vitiated and non-est in the eye of law, since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the Department in support of the charges. Relevant portions of the order is extracted hereunder:- “ 14. In the case of Roop Singh Negi (2009) 2 SCC 570 , this Court held that mere production of documents is not enough, contents of documentary evidence have to be proved by examining witnesses. Relevant extract thereof reads as under:— “ 14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi- judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi- judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents . The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. ..... 15. Same view was reiterated in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha [ (2010) 2 SCC 772 ] wherein, this Court held that even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to examine the evidence presented by the Department to find out whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha are as follows:— “ 28. The relevant observations made in Saroj Kumar Sinha are as follows:— “ 28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. …... 33 . As noticed earlier in the present case not only the respondent has been denied access to documents sought to be relied upon against him, but he has been condemned unheard as the inquiry officer failed to fix any date for conduct of the enquiry. In other words, not a single witness has been examined in support of the charges levelled against the respondent. The High Court, therefore, has rightly observed that the entire proceedings are vitiated having been conducted in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and total disregard of fair play . The respondent never had any opportunity at any stage of the proceedings to offer an explanation against the allegations made in the charge-sheet.” ...... 17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi (2009) 2 SCC 570 and Nirmala J. Jhala [ (2013) 4 SCC 301 ], we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges. 29 . 29 . In view of the rule 17(b) under which the delinquent has been charged for imposing the major penalty and the above referred decisions, coupled with the fact that no witnesses have been examined on the side of the Department, the entire charges stand not proved for want of evidence. Even though the enquiry officer relying on the instructions of the superior officers, has held in favour of the delinquent holding that the charges has not been proved, still these findings become relevant in view of the subsequent developments in the case. 30 . Inspite of the enquiry officer submitting the report on 02.11.2010 holding that all the three charges has not been proved, still the disciplinary authority since the respondent, reached the age of superannuation on 30.06.2011, placed him under suspension and also passed orders not allowing him to retire but retained him in service under Fundamental Rules 56(1)(c) in view of the pending charges. 31 . Pursuant to which, the second appellant did not agree with the findings of the enquiry officer, deviated from the enquiry report and issued notice dated 23.08.2011, holding all the three charges as proved for the reasons set out in the Annexure. For easy reference, the Annexure contained the notice dated 23.08.2011, is extracted hereunder:- “ANNEXURE Charge No.1 The Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, in his Proceedings No.K.Dis./B/2000, dated 20.7.2000 issued orders granting Ryotwari patta to Thiru K.Krishnan, S/o Kavalaikaran, Pallikkaranai Village in respect of land S.No.657-A12, measuring an extent of 10.00 acres of land in Pallikkaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk, Kancheepuram District under Section 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1946. Government alone is the competent authority to grant patta in Kazhuveli Poramboke. The Settlement Commissioner, Chennai in R.C.D2/2844/2001, dated 14.6.2001 has given directions to certain District Collectors, including the District Collector, Kancheepuram that some of the previous Assistant Settlement Officers of Thiruvannamalai have passed statutory orders under various abolition acts erroneous and to instruct the Tahsildar concerned not give effect to the orders in the Village and Taluk accounts. The delinquent officer without considering the above order and also without scrutinizing the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer has instructed his subordinates to make necessary changes in Village and Taluk accounts. Hence in deviation of the findings of Inquiry Officer that the Charge No.1 held as proved. The delinquent officer without considering the above order and also without scrutinizing the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer has instructed his subordinates to make necessary changes in Village and Taluk accounts. Hence in deviation of the findings of Inquiry Officer that the Charge No.1 held as proved. Charge No.2 The Settlement Commissioner in his instruction dt.14.6.2001 has directed the Collectors not to give effect to the erroneous orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officers. The Accused officer has not considered this and passed orders to his subordinate to make charges in the village and taluk accounts. Hence in deviation of the findings of Enquiry Officer, the Charge No.2 is held proved. Charge No.3 Since Charge No.1 and 2 are held as proved, Charge No.3 also held as proved. ” 32 . The reasons contained for disagreeing with the enquiry officer and holding the charges as proved, compared along with the original charges framed, indicate that the disciplinary authority had recorded reasons which were not based on the charges framed. Charge no.1 was only in respect of passing order dated 11.09.2002 by effecting a change in the register based on the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer dated 20.07.2000, when the lands were classified as Kazhuveli Poramboke in Revenue records and the Assistant Settlement Officer had no powers to grant patta. Whereas in the reasons stated in the Annexure, it is recorded that the Settlement Commissioner, Chennai, by proceedings dated 14.06.2001, has given directions to the District Collectors to instruct the Tahsildars not to give effect to the orders in the village & taluk accounts and the delinquent Tahsildar, without considering the above order, had passed orders to make necessary changes and therefore, the disciplinary authority is deviating from the findings of the enquiry officer. 33 . In this regard, when the charge as against the delinquent is not that he has deviated and flouted the order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 14.06.2001 and further, this proceeding was not even filed during the enquiry and no witness was examined to prove that this proceeding was issued and intimated to the delinquent, the disciplinary authority had relied on the materials which were not part of the enquiry proceedings and had held that the charge stands proved, which is not sustainable. 34 . Further the second charge was that he failed to obtain permission from the competent authorities for passing orders. 34 . Further the second charge was that he failed to obtain permission from the competent authorities for passing orders. Again in the Annexure to the order, it is recorded that the Settlement Commissioner has issued instructions dated 14.06.2001 and the delinquent officer has not followed up the instructions. 35 . When admittedly the instruction dated 14.06.2001 is not part of the enquiry proceedings and also has not been proved through any witnesses, but on the contrary, when two proceedings, which are written communications of the higher officials of the delinquent, viz. the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, instructing him to change the records, are available the disciplinary authority simply has deviated from the enquiry report and held that the second charge is proved based on the materials which were not part of the record. Ultimately the disciplinary authority held that all the three charges are proved. 36 . Further when the disciplinary authority had deviated from the findings of the enquiry officer and when no witnesses were examined and no other documents except the order dated 11.09.2002 were part of the enquiry proceedings, the disciplinary authority had the option to remand back to the enquiry officer for de-nova enquiry. 37 . When the disciplinary authority has not done so, atleast he could have examined the witnesses and marked the necessary documents giving opportunity to the respondent to cross examine the witness and thereafter could have arrived at a conclusion. But without exercising any of the options, the disciplinary authority had simply recorded that the instructions of the Settlement Commissioner dated 14.06.2001 had not been followed and thereby the charge against the delinquent stands proved, based on which the punishment of compulsory retirement came to be imposed and confirmed by the appellate authority. As such, the very proceedings dated 03.02.2012 of the disciplinary authority, in differing with the findings of the enquiry officer and holding the charges as proved, stand vitiated. 38 . Further the whole issue pertains to the erroneous orders that have been passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Thiruvannamalai under the abolition Acts. It is not revealed as to whether any action has been taken against the errant officials who were the root cause for all these problems. 38 . Further the whole issue pertains to the erroneous orders that have been passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer of Thiruvannamalai under the abolition Acts. It is not revealed as to whether any action has been taken against the errant officials who were the root cause for all these problems. However, a communication through a fax message seems to have been issued by the Settlement Commissioner on 14.06.2001 to the District Collectors of five Districts which reads as follows:- “ FAX MASSAGE TO THE COLLECTORS, CHENNAI, KANCHEEPURAM, TIRUVALLORE, VILLUPURAM, TIRUVANNAMALAI. SIR, SOME OF THE PREVIOUS ASSISTANT SETTLEMENT OFFICERS OF THIRUVANNAMALAI HAVE PASSED STATUTORY ORDERS UNDER VARIOUS ABOLITION ACTS ERRONEOUSLY. THEREFORE, INSTRUCT THE TAHSILDAR CONCERNED IMMEDIATELY AS PER THE LIST NOT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ORDERS IN THE VILLAGE AND TALUK ACCOUNTS A DETAILED REPORT IN THIS REGARD MAY PLEASE BE SENT TO THIS OFFICE EARLY. A DETAILED REPORT FOLLOWS. SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER .” 39 . As referred earlier, this proceeding was not part of the record marked before the enquiry officer. It is also not established that this communication of the Settlement Commissioner was followed up and the concerned District Collectors have intimated the same to all the Tahsildars and Revenue Officials. There is nothing on record to establish the same. In fact, nothing has been produced before the enquiry officer also to prove that this communication was made known to all the Revenue Officials. In fact even while submitting the reply to the charges and during the domestic enquiry, the delinquent had specifically submitted that the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer was not given effect to for a long time but however, his higher officials sent written instructions to give effect to those orders and carry out the necessary changes. 40 . In this regard, the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration, Chepauk, by proceedings dated 27.06.2002, had specifically instructed the respondent to give effect to the orders of the Assistant Settlement Officer in respect to 10 acres of land covered under the order dated 20.07.2000 and to make necessary changes in the village and taluk accounts without further delay. The written communication of the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration is extracted hereunder:- “ Office of the Commissioner Land Administration, Chennai-600 005. Date: 27-6-2002 N.Dis. The written communication of the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration is extracted hereunder:- “ Office of the Commissioner Land Administration, Chennai-600 005. Date: 27-6-2002 N.Dis. J.C. Conf1.9/2002 The Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai has granted Ryotwari Patta to Thiru K. Krishnan, S/o. Kavalaikkaran, Narayanapuram H/o. Pallikaranai Village, Tambaram Taluk in respect of S.No.657/1A2 measuring an extent of 10.00 Acres of land in Pallikkaranai Village in Tambaram Taluk of Kancheepuram District under section 11(a) of the Tamil Nadu Estates (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act 1948 in his order K.Dis. (B2)1138/2000/Dated 20.7.2000. The Tahsildar requested to make necessary changes in the village and Taluk Accounts without further delay. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF LAND ADMINISTRATION, EZHILAGAM CHEPAUK, CHENNAI-600 005. To The Tahsildar Tambaram.” 41 . It seems that even then the respondent had not carried out the changes that had prompted the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, to issue proceedings dated 10.09.2002 by referring to the communication of the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration dated 27.06.2002 and directed the respondent to carry out the necessary changes in the village and taluk accounts by complying with the instructions of the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration. The proceedings of the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, is extracted hereunder:- 42 . Admittedly the orders passed by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Thiruvannamalai, was inclusive of this 10 acres of land and no such fax message as referred earlier dated 14.06.2001 of the Settlement Commissioner was shown to have been circulated or served on the Tahsildars and other Revenue Officials instructing them not to make any changes in the village records. Whereas the fact remains, two specific orders has been passed by the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, who are the higher officials of the delinquent respondent instructing him to carry out the changes in the village records, particularly in respect of the lands covered under the petition submitted, it is seen that the respondent had in compliance to the directions of the superior officials had passed the order dated 11.09.2002. 43 . 43 . As such, the very charge that he has passed orders without obtaining permission from the competent authority is without any basis and further the fact remains that the appellants had not chosen to proceed as against the Joint Commissioner of Land Administration and the District Revenue Officer, Kanchipuram, whose written instructions are available in the file and who were aware of the proceedings of the Settlement Commissioner, had gone ahead and instructed the delinquent respondent Tahsildar to carry out the changes. 44 . For this, the learned Special Government Pleader only sought to explain that since this 10 acres of land are available with the Government, no proceedings were taken against them, but however since the respondent Tahsildar alone had deviated from the communication of the Assistant Settlement Officer and effected change, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, which defies any logic and we are unable to accept it. 45 . In view of the above deliberations, we do not find any error or infirmity in the order of the learned Judge in setting aside the punishment that warrants interference and as such the order of the writ court is sustained. 46 . Accordingly, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed . However, six (6) weeks time from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, is granted to comply with the directions issued by the Writ Court. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.