ORDER : This Writ Petition was earlier closed by this Court based on the submission of the petitioner on 11.08.2022. 2. Subsequently, an application was filed for reopening of the case. Recording the submissions of the petitioner, an Order was passed on 23.08.2024 in W.M.P.No.25315 of 2024 and thereby the Writ Petition was restored to the files of this Court. 3. In this Writ Petition, the petitioner has challenged the Impugned Punishment Order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the 1 st respondent which was affirmed by the 1 st respondent on 17.10.2014 while disposing of the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 4. By an order dated 23.11.2012, the 2 nd respondent has inflicted the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of 6 months without cumulative effective on the petitioner. 5. The impugned proceedings/order dated 23.11.2012 emanates from the Charge Memo issued to the petitioner on 12.03.2009. 6. The charge against the petitioner was that the petitioner while working as an Accountant at Sub Treasury, Rasipuram, had connived with one S.Charles Karamchand, formerly Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Rasipuram and had demanded and accepted illegal gratification during the period between 21.02.2005 and 08.08.2007 from 7 pensioners to settle their pension. The aforesaid Charge Memo dated 12.03.2009 reads as under:- “ Charge No.1 While working Accountant at Sub Treasury Rasipuram, Thiru K.Mohana Madhavan in connivance with Thiru S.Charles Karamchand, formerly Assistant Treasury Officer, Sub Treasury, Rasipuram has demanded and accepted illegal gratification during the period between 21.02.2005 to 08.08.2007 from the following pensioners to settle their pension. Rs.3,000/- From Thiru R.Chinnussamy Rs.4,000/- From Thiru R.Subramanian R.1,000/- From Thiru A.Muthusamy Rs.2,000/- From Thiru M.Kandhan Rs.1,000/- From Thiru A.Ramasamy Rs.1,000/- From Thiru Subramani Rs.1,000/- From Thiru P.Kandasamy Thus, he has failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and violated Rule 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973.” 7. The petitioner submitted an explanation to the charges and thereafter an Inquiry Officer was appointed who ultimately gave an Inquiry Report dated 31.12.2009 wherein, it was the view of the Inquiry Officer that the charges against the petitioner of the alleged demand for bribe from the above named pensioners had not been proved. 8. Disagreeing with the same, the 1 st respondent issued a 2 nd Show Cause Notice dated 21.02.2011 along with the Inquiry Report. 9. 8. Disagreeing with the same, the 1 st respondent issued a 2 nd Show Cause Notice dated 21.02.2011 along with the Inquiry Report. 9. The only reason given in the aforesaid 2 nd Show Cause Notice is that the views of the Inquiry Officer cannot be accepted as the Departmental Proceedings are governed by Preponderance of Probability and not by strict rules of evidence (or) proof beyond the reasonable doubt. The reasons recorded in the 2 nd Show Cause Notice reads as under:- “2. The undersigned, after careful consideration of the report of the Inquiry Officer, disagree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer for the following reasons:- 10. The petitioner has responded to the same which has culminated in an Order of Punishment dated 23.11.2012. 11. In the Punishment Order dated 23.11.2012 passed by the 1 st respondent in G.O.(2D) No.112, Finance (Treasuries and Accounts-2) Department, the 1 st respondent has summarized the views of the Inquiry Officer in the Inquiry Report dated 31.12.2009 but has however proceeded to confirm the charges framed in the Charge Memo dated 12.03.2009 based on the reasons given in the 2 nd Show Cause Notice dated 21.02.2011 which has been extracted above. 12. On a review, the revision petition filed by the petitioner has also been rejected by the 1 st respondent by an Order dated 17.10.2014 wherein, the 1 st respondent has reiterated the findings in the Impugned Punishment Order dated 23.11.2012. 13. Learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents reiterates and submits that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed as the Impugned Punishment Order dated 23.11.2012 and the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by the 1 st respondent are well-reasoned and requires no interference. 14. It is further submitted that scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is confined to decision making process and not to the decision as such. 15. It is submitted that the both the Impugned Orders did not suffer from any palpable illegality or arbitrariness and therefore this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 17. 15. It is submitted that the both the Impugned Orders did not suffer from any palpable illegality or arbitrariness and therefore this Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. 16. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 17. As mentioned above, the Charge Memo dated 12.03.2009 has been issued to the petitioner for the alleged misconduct of demanding bribe in connivance with one S.Charler Karamchand, formerly Assistant Treasury Officer for the period between 21.02.2005 and 08.08.2007. The informations that have been gathered led to the issuance of the aforesaid Charge Memo and thereafter 6 persons were produced as witnesses on behalf of the Department who have uniformly stated that they had no dealings with the petitioner. 18. It is under these circumstances, the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report dated 31.12.2009 has found that the petitioner was not guilty of the charges framed on 12.03.2009. The 2 nd Show Cause Notice which was issued by the 1 st respondent on 21.02.2011, is merely based on the legal principle that disciplinary proceedings are based on Preponderance of Probability and not on the strict rules of evidence. 19. The overall facts and circumstances of the case indicate that no case is made out for imposing a punishment based on event Preponderance of Probability as there is not an iota of evidence or statement by any of the witnesses who were examined on behalf of the Department. Unless there are some inculpatory statements recorded against the petitioner, the question of imposing punishment based on the charges framed cannot be countenanced. 20. In this connection, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra , (1998) 7 SCC 84 , is invited. In Paragraph 19, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer . The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 21. As such, the Impugned Orders are liable to be quashed. Therefore, the Impugned Orders are quashed. This Writ Petition is accordingly allowed with consequential relief to the petitioner. The benefit which has been denied to the petitioner shall be restored, be repatriated/paid back to the petitioner within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.