ORDER : 1. The petitioner is a retired Conductor of the respondent Transport Corporation. While he was on duty on 14.05.2015 in a Bus bearing Reg.No.TN74 N 1148, he collected ticket fare from the passengers, but, did not issue tickets to the passengers and had not accounted for the same in the invoice. While the Checking Inspector verified the tickets, it was found that the petitioner had misappropriated a sum of Rs.540/-. Therefore, the petitioner was issued with a charge memo and after conducting domestic enquiry, the disciplinary authority, namely, the second respondent, by order dated 30.04.2022, passed an order imposing a punishment of stage reduction of the petitioner's scale of pay by reducing 3 yearly increments with cumulative effect for one year. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the first respondent. The first respondent, by order 07.09.2022, dismissal the appeal filed by the petitioner, confirming the order of punishment passed by the second respondent. Challenging the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer has given a clean chit to the petitioner and submitted his report that the charges are not proved. However, the respondents have appointed another enquiry officer. The appointment of second Enquiry Officer was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2125 of 2020 and the same was allowed by this Court, by order dated 20.02.2020. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has taken a decision based on the report of the earlier enquiry officer and imposed the punishment. When the Enquiry Officer has filed the not proved minute, the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order of punishment. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that apart from this charge, the petitioner has earlier involved in similar illegalities. The petitioner was thrice punished for such similar misappropriation and twice punished for misbehavior with passengers. The petitioner was issued with a show cause notice and after providing an opportunity, the decision was taken by the disciplinary authority. Though the Enquiry Officer has filed a report that the charges are not proved, the disciplinary authority can independently look into the evidence and the materials and can take a decision with the available materials. In this case, the Enquiry Officer has given a report by recording the contradictory statements made by the Checking Inspector. Though the Enquiry Officer has filed a report that the charges are not proved, the disciplinary authority can independently look into the evidence and the materials and can take a decision with the available materials. In this case, the Enquiry Officer has given a report by recording the contradictory statements made by the Checking Inspector. The contradictions can be appreciated only in the criminal case and not in the departmental proceedings. The ratio which needs to be considered by the disciplinary authority is the preponderance of probabilities and not beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, with the evidence available, the disciplinary authority has passed the order of punishment. 4. This Court considered the rival submissions made and also perused the materials placed on record. 5. The main grievance of the petitioner is that the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report that the charges levelled as against him are not proved, even then, the disciplinary authority has passed the order of punishment. According to him, the disciplinary authority, with an intention to punish him, ordered for a further enquiry by appointing another enquiry officer. The petitioner has challenged the same and this Court has held as against the respondent Corporation that the disciplinary authority is not supposed to appoint another enquiry officer. Therefore, for having filed the writ petition as against the decision taken by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority has imposed a major punishment of stage reduction. 6. It appears that the Enquiry Officer has submitted a report that the charges levelled as against the petitioner are not proved, however, the disciplinary authority has failed to consider the report of the Enquiry Officer in proper perspective. 7. The specific case of the respondents is that the petitioner on seeing the Checking Inspector has attempted to issue three tickets and hand it over to the driver. However, the driver has not supported the case of the Checking Inspector before the Enquiry Officer. It would be relevant to extract the findings of the Enquiry Officer: 8. However, the disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed the order of punishment without any valid discussion. Therefore, the order of punishment is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. It would be relevant to extract the findings of the Enquiry Officer: 8. However, the disciplinary authority differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and passed the order of punishment without any valid discussion. Therefore, the order of punishment is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. The order of punishment dated 30.04.2022 issued by second respondent and the order of the first respondent dated 07.09.2022 confirming the punishment imposed by the second respondent, are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondents for fresh consideration. No costs. 10. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.