JUDGMENT :

R. VIJAYAKUMAR, J.

(Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, to set aside the order dated 18.07.2012 in W.P.No.21889 of 2004.)

1. The unsuccessful writ petitioner is the appellant herein.

2. The writ petitioner was working as a Sub-Registrar at Anna Nagar, Sub- Registrar Office, Chennai. He was issued a charge memo on 13.09.2000 on the allegation that he demanded and received a bribe of Rs.4,000/- from one Raju for registering a sale deed. The writ petitioner submitted his explanation to the said charge memo. An enquiry officer was appointed to go into the allegation. The enquiry officer examined the witnesses and the writ petitioner was permitted to engage a counsel and also to cross-examine the witnesses. Thereafter, an enquiry reported was submitted finding the writ petitioner guilty of charges.

3. The Registration Department sought opinion of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission with regard to the imposition of the punishment. On 17.06.2003, the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission gave its opinion that it a fit case for ordering removal from service. Based on the said advise, the respondent herein passed an order in G.O(Rt).No.89, dated 27.04.2004 removing the petitioner from service. The said order was challenged in W.P.No.21899 of 2004 mainly on the ground that there are contradictions in the oral and documentary evidence of the complaint and the enquiry officer has not properly appreciated the inconsistency in the written statement filed before him.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner had contended that though three persons have deposed before the enquiry officer, they have refused to sign in the statement and hence, their statements should not have been considered by the enquiry officer. The counsel for the writ petitioner had further contended that there is absolutely no evidence for imposing a major penalty of removal from service. The learned Single Judge after considering the submission of the writ petitioner has held that strict rule of evidence does not apply to departmental enquiry and hence, non-signing of the statement by the deponents before the enquiry officer cannot be fatal to the enquiry report. The learned Single Judge has further held that the High Court while exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot re-appreciate the evidence and arrive at a difference conclusion unless the findings are perverse. The learned Single Judge further held that the allegation of corruption is a serious misconduct and hence, the punishment imposed, namely removal from service, cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved charges. As against the said order, the present Writ Appeal has been filed.

5. Pending writ appeal, the appellant had passed away on 07.04.2017 and his legal heirs have been substituted as appellants 2 to 7 in the writ appeal. The learned counsel for the appellants contended that there are various contradictions among the statement of the deponents and the allegation that the writ petitioner has received the bribe of Rs.4,000/- has not been proved. The learned counsel further contended that there is absolutely no evidence to prove the delinquency that the petitioner had demanded and accepted the bribe amount of Rs.4,000/- for registering a sale deed and hence, any finding to the said effect is perverse. The learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the disciplinary authority has not properly considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Pursuant to the enquiry report, an non-speaking order has been passed by the disciplinary authority removing the petitioner from service.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent.

7. The main contentions of the appellants is that there are contradictions between the deposition of various witnesses but it cannot be considered by the Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The judgement of Hon'ble Supreme