( 1 ) PETITIONER, an ex-employee of Central Silk Board (for short, 'the Board') is before me challenging the order of dismissal and the subsequent confirmation of the same by the Appellate Authority in this petition. Petitioner has joined the services in the year 1990 as Senior Research assistant. He was transferred to Central Tasar Research and Training institute, Ranchi. He reported to duty on 24-4-1997. After working for three days, he applied for leave from 1-5-1997 to 24-7-1997 with an intention to shift his family from Mysore. Thereafter, he did not shift his family to Ranchi. He states that his aged father is a chronic asthma patient and he required medical attention. Petitioner also states that he himself has some health problems. He complains of severe backache. He sought for extension of leave. Leave was not granted. A show-cause notice dated 22-11-1998 came to be issued on account of his remaining absent without leave from 25-5-1997 to 22-11-1998. Proceedings were held. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings. The Board accepted the findings and issued a show-cause notice with regard to the report and thereafter passed an order of removal. An unsuccessful appeal was filed by the petitioner. Petitioner in these circumstances is before me.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance and have filed a detailed affidavit supporting their action. Their defence is one of an admission on the part of the petitioner. They want this petition to be dismissed. Rejoinder is filed.

( 3 ) HEARD Sri S. V. Narasimhan, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri N. S. Prasad, learned Counsel for the respondents.

( 4 ) MR. Narasimhan, learned Counsel raised a plea of defective enquiry in the case on hand. Counsel further says that the findings are perverse. His further argument is that an In charge Member Secretary cannot pass the impugned order. Insofar as the appellate order is concerned, learned Counsel points out patent errors.

( 5 ) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent would say that the writ jurisdiction being a limited one, this Court cannot interfere with regard to appreciation of evidence. He relies on several judgments. He wants this petition to be dismissed.

( 6 ) THE first argument of Sri Narasimhan, is one of defective enquiry. Material facts reveal that a memo came to be issued by the enquiring authority fixing the date of appearance as 22-3-1999. On 26-3-1999 proceedings were held and in the proceedings it is stated that the said proceeding is only preliminary in character. Articles of charge were made available to the petitioner on the said date. Initially, the enquiring authority suggested some time to express the acceptance of the charges or denial of the same. In the light of this suggestion petitioner sought for time. However, without giving time proceedings were concluded. In the proceedings petitioner has stated reading as under:"i have perused the total content of the Memorandum signed by Member Secretary dated 22-11-1998 and find that all the contents are true and correct, and I fully agree to the charges framed against me". He further states that:"although I totally agree to the charges framed, I have certain statements to be made before you regarding the circumstances under which I am forced to remain absent due to bad health of both myself and my father". He further states that:"i could not duly respect to the instructions by my parent institute and Head Office, Central Silk Board. I fully regret for having done this mistake. I have volunteered to present myself before the committee to explain my plea for your sympathetic consideration as humble employee". It is also to be noticed that the enquiring authority has noticed that the DGO has accepted the charges in toto and no further regular hearings were considered essential. In the light of this material what is clear to me is that there is some procedural irregularity in conducting the enquiry. In the preliminary enquiry proceedings articles of