ORDER : 1. While the petitioner was working as Regional Audit Officer, he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, by issuing a charge memo dated 01.02.2011 containing four charges, which are as under: 2. The petitioner submitted his explanation in response to the charge memo on 21.02.2011, 06.04.2011 and finally on 16.05.2011 denying the charges. It was thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed on 22.07.2011 for enquiring into the charges levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer, after having conducted detailed enquiry, submitted his report dated 24.06.2013, concluding that the Charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner as not proved and Charge Nos.2 to 4 as proved. It was thereafter, a copy of the report of the enquiry officer was communicated to the petitioner on 06.09.2013 duly affording an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his further representation. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his further representation on 05.12.2013. It was thereafter, the Government issued a provisional conclusion order proposing to impose the punishment of cut in pension of Rs.2,000/- per month for a period of three years. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 25.04.2014. It was thereafter, the 2 nd respondent passed orders in G.O.Ms.No.63 Tourism, Culture and Religious Endowments Department, dated 17.04.2015, imposing the punishment as proposed. It is aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 3. Heard Mr.K.Venkataramani, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.Muthappan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Ravichandran, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents (HR & CE). 4. As already noted above, in all four charges were framed against the petitioner. Out of the four charges, Charge No.1 was held as not proved. The reason for holding the said charge as not proved is that the alleged incident of abusing/insulting Tmt.S.P.Santhi, Audit Inspector was on 29.01.2009, but the said Audit Inspector has not attended at all the office on 29.01.2009 and therefore, the question of petitioner abusing or insulting the Audit Inspector on 29.01.2009 does not arise. 5. The Charge No.2 is on the basis of some conversation between the petitioner and the alleged victim, Tmt.S.P.Santhi, Audit Inspector in connection with the eating habit of the said Audit Inspector, and the petitioner making certain comments against the said Audit Inspector and her husband by calling her 'ortho dog', etc. 5. The Charge No.2 is on the basis of some conversation between the petitioner and the alleged victim, Tmt.S.P.Santhi, Audit Inspector in connection with the eating habit of the said Audit Inspector, and the petitioner making certain comments against the said Audit Inspector and her husband by calling her 'ortho dog', etc. The said charge was held to have been proved by the enquiry officer by placing reliance on the two suggestions put by the learned counsel for the delinquent/petitioner to Tmt.S.P.Santhi during her cross-examination, on advising her to learn Japanese language, as the persons who have learned Japanese language are earning Rs.5,000/- per hour, etc. As a matter of fact, the so called advise by the petitioner to Tmt.S.P.Santhi, about learning Japanese language was alleged in the Charge No.1, but not in Charge No.2. The incident which is the basis for Charge No.1 was alleged to have been taken place on 29.01.2009 and whereas, the instances which are basis for Charge No.2 are alleged to have been taken place on 30.01.2009. But the enquiry officer instead of examining the truth or otherwise of Charge No.2, by placing reliance on two suggestions made on behalf of the petitioner, during the cross examination of Tmt.S.P.Santhi pertaining to the incidents which is subject matter of Charge No.1, came to the conclusion that the Charge No.2 is proved against the petitioner. Thus, the entire evidence that was relied upon by the enquiry officer to come to the conclusion that the Charge No.2 as proved is totally an irrelevant evidence and as a matter of fact, there is no finding on the alleged, making of unnecessary comments against Tmt.S.P.Santhi affecting her mentally as alleged in the Charge No.2. Hence, the finding recorded by the enquiry officer on Charge No.2 is bound to be declared as perverse. 6. The Charge No.3 is again with regard to asking Tmt.S.P.Santhi to shut her mouth, get up and get out, etc. Hence, the finding recorded by the enquiry officer on Charge No.2 is bound to be declared as perverse. 6. The Charge No.3 is again with regard to asking Tmt.S.P.Santhi to shut her mouth, get up and get out, etc. Insofar as this charge is concerned, though the enquiry officer has referred to the affidavits filed by Thiru.Seethavasan, Audit Inspector of Regional Audit Office, Madurai and K.Sivanesan, Deputy Chief Audit Officer to the effect that the petitioner has shouted in high tone asking her to get up, the enquiry officer failed to refer to the cross-examination of the said witnesses done on behalf of the petitioner and also failed to refer to the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner during the course of enquiry. Further, a perusal of the report of the enquiry officer does not disclose as to who are the witnesses that are examined during the course of enquiry , what are the documents that were marked, etc are totally missing. A perusal of the entire report of the enquiry officer shows that the same was perfunctory in nature and does not satisfy the basic requirements of an enquiry report. 7. Then coming to Charge No.4, the same is only a consequential charge basing upon the Charge Nos.1 to 3. 8. Further, inspite of the petitioner raising several objections against the report of the enquiry officer and non-consideration of the evidence adduced on behalf of the petitioner during the course of enquiry by submitting a further representation dated 05.12.2013, the 2 nd respondent while communicating his provisional conclusion dated 17.03.2014 and while passing the impugned order dated 17.04.2015 failed to take into consideration all such objections raised by the petitioner. The petitioner has also raised various objections on the very appointment of the enquiry officer, and also in conducting a separate enquiry in respect of the charges framed against the petitioner and another delinquent employee by name Sivanesan, basing upon the very same instances/incidents that took place on 29.01.2009 and 30.01.2009. But none of those objections were dealt with in the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent. Thus, the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent basing upon the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer in his report dated 24.06.2013 cannot be sustained. 9. But none of those objections were dealt with in the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent. Thus, the impugned order passed by the 2 nd respondent basing upon the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer in his report dated 24.06.2013 cannot be sustained. 9. Be that as it may, basing upon the very same instances which are basis for subjecting the petitioner to disciplinary proceedings, a criminal proceedings were also initiated against the petitioner in S.C.No.36 of 2011 on the file of the Court of the III Additional District Judge, (P.C.R), Madurai and the petitioner and another by name Sivanesan were acquitted in the said criminal case under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Act) by judgment dated 07.07.2014. Inspite of the petitioner bringing this fact to the notice of the 2 nd respondent, the same was also not taken into consideration by the 2 nd respondent while passing the impugned order. Further, the basis for initiating the disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is the report dated 27.09.2010 of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women, and the said report by itself cannot form basis for imposing the punishment on the petitioner, as the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements are the basis for submitting such report. 10. As this Court has come to the conclusion that the report of the enquiry officer is not in compliance with the principles of natural justice, as the entire evidence that was brought on record was not taken into consideration and the interim order came to be passed without considering the objections raised by the petitioner, in the normal course, this Court would have remanded the matter back to the respondents for conducting de novo enquiry on the charges against the petitioner. However, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2011 and the impugned order came to be passed on 17.04.2015, that is after a lapse of four years since the date of retirement from service and also the fact that the petitioner was subjected to criminal proceedings as well, which ended in acquittal on 07.07.2014, the petitioner was sufficiently subjected to mental agony for more than four years, this Court is of the considered view that it would not be proper to allow the respondents to re-do the entire exercise at this stage and instead, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to put a quietus to the matter at this stage itself. 11. In the light of the above, the impugned order passed in G.O.Ms.No.63, Tourisj, Culture and Religious Institutions (RI 2-2) Department dated 17.04.20151 is hereby set aside, directing the respondents to restrict the punishment as cut in pension at the rate of Rs.1,000/- for a period of two years and any amounts recovered over and above the said punishment shall be refunded to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. The connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No costs.