12.Further, the impugned order of the 3rd respondent has not distinguished the findings of the enquiry officer. It is imperative on the part of the 3rd respondent, especially while he differing with the findings of the enquiry officer, he has to give independent, justifiable reason as to how and why he differed with the findings of the enquiry officer. The perusal of the impugned order of the 3rd respondent would show that, he on his own without meeting out the findings of the enquiry officer, given his findings is unsustainable in the service jurisprudence. Therefore the impugned order of the District Collector, Tuticorin go to show his non-application of mind to the total facts and circumstance of the events related with the charges. In this context this Court in Tmt.D.Vijayalakshmi v. The Chairman, Tamilnadu Slum Clearance Board in W.P.No.20229 of 2007 and W.P.No.18607 of 2008 dated 27.08.2009 has held that in the present case on hand the enquiry officer has given a clear finding based upon the materials available exonerating the petitioner from all the charges. No doubt, the power is conferred upon the respondent to accept or differ the findings on the report of the enquiry officer. The disciplinary officer can differ with the findings of the enquiry officer and in that case, he has to point out the differences and on that basis consider and proceed to issue a show cause notice calling for the explanation from the delinquent officer. So in the opinion of the Court the non-application of the mind would make the impugned order is unsustainable.
