ORDER : (Order of the Court was made by G.ARUL MURUGAN, J .) This Writ Petition is filed challenging the order of the second respondent dated 29.04.2022, whereby the punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on the petitioner, which was also confirmed by the order of the first respondent/appellate authority dated 15.07.2024. 2 . The petitioner was originally selected through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission and appointed as Junior Assistant on 17.08.2009. Her services came to be regularised and the probation was declared with effect from 17.08.2011. Thereafter, she was promoted as Assistant on 19.02.2013 and was further promoted as Head Clerk and joined in the District Munsif Court, Pappireddipatti, Dharmapuri District, with effect from 03.05.2019. 3 . Based on a complaint dated 25.03.2021 received from one S.Panneerselvam, S/o.Singaram, alleging that the petitioner is receiving bribe amount between Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- for numbering new civil suits in the District Munsif Court, Pappireddipatti, had requested to take necessary legal action. A discreet enquiry was conducted, which disclosed prima facie evidence against the petitioner. A memo was issued on 07.07.2021 and she submitted her explanation to the memo on 12.07.2021 denying the allegations. 4 . The disciplinary authority issued a charge memo dated 30.07.2021 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as “the Rules”] framing the following charge:- 5 . The petitioner submitted her explanation and not satisfied with the same, the enquiry officer was appointed. After completing the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted the report on 02.12.2021, holding the charge as proved. A second show cause notice was issued and on receipt of the representation of the delinquent on 05.03.2022, the disciplinary authority, concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and by order dated 29.04.2022, imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement under Rule 8(vi) of the Rules. The appeal preferred to the appellate authority challenging the punishment also came to be rejected by the first respondent on 15.07.2024. Assailing the punishment imposed, the petitioner had preferred the above writ petition. 6 . Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Premkumar appearing for the petitioner contended that the very charge issued against the petitioner is vague and in view of the vagueness, the entire disciplinary proceedings conducted and the punishment imposed cannot be sustained. Assailing the punishment imposed, the petitioner had preferred the above writ petition. 6 . Mr.V.Prakash, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Premkumar appearing for the petitioner contended that the very charge issued against the petitioner is vague and in view of the vagueness, the entire disciplinary proceedings conducted and the punishment imposed cannot be sustained. The disciplinary authority had not framed the charge giving specific details in respect of time, place and date as to when the delinquent had received bribe and in the absence of any such details, the charge cannot be sustained on the ground of vagueness. 7 . He further contended that the complainant, S.Panneerselvam, is a non-existent fictitious person and therefore, the very proceedings initiated based on his complaint dated 25.03.2021 cannot be sustained and the disciplinary authority ought to have dropped the entire proceedings. 8 . The learned Senior Counsel vehemently contended that the details of the CCTV footage had not been disclosed in the annexure to the charge memo and the proceedings cannot be conducted and punishment be imposed relying on the CCTV footage. It is his further contention that the documents in Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.4, Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 had not been referred to in the charge memo, hence, the entire proceedings stand vitiated. 9 . The learned Senior Counsel further contended that the enquiry officer had not conducted the enquiry in a fair and proper manner as the fact that these materials were not furnished, had not been taken note of. Further, when the delinquent had examined D.W.2, the advocate who is alleged to have handed over the bribe in respect of the delinquency, where he had deposed denying handing over any money to the delinquent and therefore, the charge is not proved. 10 . In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chamoli District Coop. Bank Ltd. Vs. Raghunath Singh Rana reported in (2016) 12 SCC 204 and contended that the enquiry conducted is not proper and therefore the entire proceedings imposing the punishment cannot be sustained. 11 . Contending contra, Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had taken inconsistent stands by giving different explanations just to wriggle out of the charges. Raghunath Singh Rana reported in (2016) 12 SCC 204 and contended that the enquiry conducted is not proper and therefore the entire proceedings imposing the punishment cannot be sustained. 11 . Contending contra, Mr.Karthik Ranganathan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had taken inconsistent stands by giving different explanations just to wriggle out of the charges. It is his further contention that the documents in Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 were only the internal communications between the disciplinary authority and the first respondent and Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 are the CCTV footages, which were shown to the delinquent and her advocate, only based on which they have conducted cross-examination and also produced witnesses on their side. 12 . It is his further contention that, in fact, when the form of the questionnaire was issued to her, she had not requested to furnish any document at that point of time and instead had stated that she would get the documents in the future, if necessary. Further the documents have been marked without any objection or protest. 13 . The learned Counsel further submitted that the explanation offered by the delinquent, on the face of it is found to be false, as the delinquent is found to be receiving the currency notes from the advocate. Only after affording sufficient opportunities and the enquiry having been conducted in a proper and fair manner, the report of the enquiry officer holding the charges as proved was accepted and the disciplinary authority had for the proven charges, imposed the appropriate punishment on the delinquent, which is perfectly justified. The appellate authority also had rejected the appeal confirming the punishment, which needs no interference and sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 14 . Heard the rival submissions of the respective counsels and perused the materials placed on record. 15 . The petitioner, while she was working as Head Clerk in the District Munsif Court, Paddireddipatti, Dharmapuri District, was issued with a memo dated 07.07.2021, based on the complaint dated 25.03.2021 from one S.Panneerselvam, S/o.Singaram, to the effect that the petitioner had been receiving bribe amounts between Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- for numbering new civil suits in the District Munsif Court. 16 . A discreet enquiry conducted with the Advocates and the Advocate clerks revealed that the allegation made in the complaint is true. 16 . A discreet enquiry conducted with the Advocates and the Advocate clerks revealed that the allegation made in the complaint is true. The petitioner submitted her explanation to the memo on 12.07.2021 denying the allegation. Pursuant to which the disciplinary authority issued the charge memo dated 30.07.2021 framing the charge under Rule 17(b) of the Rules, as extracted above. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner submitted her reply on 14.08.2021. Not satisfied with the explanation offered, the enquiry officer was appointed. In the enquiry, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined by the Department and Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15 were marked. D.W.1 and D.W.2 were examined on the side of the delinquent and further, Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 were marked. 17 . Even though the person who had sent the complaint Ex.P.1 did not respond to the notices, the allegations made in the complaint on the preliminary enquiry was found to be true. Therefore, on verification of the CCTV footages, it was found that the delinquent had received bribe amount from an advocate on 20.04.2021. The enquiry officer had recorded that in the department proceedings, even if the complainant did not turn up for enquiry or turned hostile and just because the complainant was found to be fictitious, the same would not ipso facto be a ground for discharge of the delinquent. 18 . It is the vehement contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the disciplinary proceedings ought to have been dropped the moment the complainant was found to be non-existent. We are not able to accept such an argument. In the disciplinary proceedings, strict rules of evidence do not apply and the charge against the delinquent can be proved by preponderance of probabilities. If some material is available to substantiate the charge framed against the delinquent, it will be sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. 19 . Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 are only the internal communications between the disciplinary authority and the first respondent in respect of the preliminary enquiry and issuance of the charge memo and for initiating further proceedings. Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 are the compact disks containing the VCR recordings. 19 . Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.4 are only the internal communications between the disciplinary authority and the first respondent in respect of the preliminary enquiry and issuance of the charge memo and for initiating further proceedings. Ex.P.14 and Ex.P.15 are the compact disks containing the VCR recordings. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the petitioner in the questionnaire submitted had not requested for any further documents and she has endorsed that she would collect the documents, if any required in future and these evidences were marked without any protest or objections. The fact that the CCTV footage was viewed by the delinquent along with her advocate, establishes that sufficient opportunity has been granted to the delinquent and only based on which the delinquent had taken a new defence and also examined D.W.2, the advocate who is involved in the delinquency in the CCTV footage. Further no prejudice has been caused to the delinquent by not listing Ex.P.15 in the memo, as the same has been viewed and evidence has been produced by both the department and the petitioner in the enquiry. 20 . The delinquent first offered an explanation that she had only asked to buy tea and only the change was handed over to her and then she took a different stand that since the Deputy Nazir was not there, she was attending that duty and therefore she had received the amount only for the arrest batta. Thereafter again, gave a different explanation that she has not collected any money from the advocate Mr.Kennedy but he had only handed over 5 numbers of Rs.20/- stamps towards the deficit court fee, which has been recorded in the CCTV footage in Ex.P.15. 21 . To establish her third defence, she examined D.W.2, the advocate, who is recorded in the CCTV footage who had deposed that he had handed over only the deficit court fee stamps. In the enquiry, it was found that from the CCTV footage in Ex.P.15, it is amply clear that the delinquent has not received stamps from the advocate Mr.Kennedy, but he has taken out his purse and handed over the currency notes, which have been received by the delinquent, that too under the table. In the enquiry, it was found that from the CCTV footage in Ex.P.15, it is amply clear that the delinquent has not received stamps from the advocate Mr.Kennedy, but he has taken out his purse and handed over the currency notes, which have been received by the delinquent, that too under the table. When the CCTV visual clearly establishes the fact of handing over the currency notes and the finding of the fact has been recorded by the enquiry officer, the examination of D.W.2 by the delinquent to the effect that he had handed over only deficit stamps does not support the case of the petitioner. 22 . Further, the plaint in the suit presented by D.W.2 advocate has been marked as X.2, which is the plaint in O.S.No.90 of 2021 filed on 20.04.2021. From the plaint, it has been evidenced that the total court fee payable in the suit was Rs.1,302/- and already 65 numbers of Rs.20/- stamps have been fixed along with 1 number of Rs.5/- stamps and therefore a sum of Rs.1,305/- has been affixed in the plaint, which has already Rs.3/- court fee stamps in excess. Therefore, from X.2 it is seen that the sufficient stamps, that too in excess, had already been affixed. The defence taken that five stamps of Rs.20/- denomination were handed over on 20.04.2021 towards the deficit court fee was found to be factually incorrect. 23 . The department had also examined P.W.3, who is the Deputy Nazir, to prove the fact that the Deputy Nazir had been present on duty on 20.04.2021 for the whole day and therefore the second defence earlier taken that the petitioner collected only the arrest batta was also found to be incorrect, as the Head Clerk was not required to attend to the work of the Deputy Nazir. 24 . The first defence of getting tea for her and only the change was handed over also, is not probable from the fact that the person who handed over the currency is an advocate / D.W.2, which fact had made the petitioner herself realise after seeing the CCTV footage and adopt a different stand. The enquiry officer after analysing all the evidences and materials, arrived at a finding and held the charge as proved. 25 . The enquiry officer after analysing all the evidences and materials, arrived at a finding and held the charge as proved. 25 . When specific charge has been framed as against the delinquent for which she has submitted her reply and the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted by affording sufficient opportunities, in which the delinquent participated and had cross-examined the witnesses of the department and had also examined witnesses on her side, we do not find any flaw in the enquiry proceedings. 26 . As such, the decision relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in respect of Chamoli's case is not applicable to the facts of the present case, when sufficient opportunity has been provided in the disciplinary proceedings. The disciplinary authority, after analysing the evidence and the explanation of the delinquent, had concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and had imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, which has also been confirmed by the appellate authority. 27 . This Court while exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is only reviewing the decision making process and not the decision itself. Re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible and this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision arrived at by the disciplinary authority. Only it has to be seen whether the enquiry conducted is proper and sufficient opportunity is afforded to the delinquent in the disciplinary proceedings. 28 . Having arrived at a conclusion that the enquiry has been conducted in a fair and proper manner, it is only to be seen as to whether the punishment imposed is proportionate to the charges. The petitioner is serving in the judicial department and the charge that she had been indulging in corruption by receiving bribe for numbering the suits is a very serious charge. Corruption in Judicial service erodes public confidence and trust. The litigant public will be affected and also the majesty of the court proceedings will be undermined. Integrity and honesty are the basic requirements in the Judicial service, where the interest of a large number of litigant public is involved. 29 . In such circumstances, the punishment of compulsory retirement is commensurate for the proven charge of corruption. We do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order of the respondent. 30 . Integrity and honesty are the basic requirements in the Judicial service, where the interest of a large number of litigant public is involved. 29 . In such circumstances, the punishment of compulsory retirement is commensurate for the proven charge of corruption. We do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order of the respondent. 30 . In view of the same, the impugned orders are sustained and accordingly, this Writ Petition stands dismissed . There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.