Jagannadha Rao, CJ.

This is an appeal preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the Writ Petition. The question related to the validity of the disciplinary action taken against the appellant and the order of dismissal from service, Ext. P6 dated 7-9-1987.

2. The appellant was formerly the Finance Manager of the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd., Cannanore, and was holding the said post till 10-9-1987 when the above said order of dismissal was passed. A domestic enquiry was earlier conducted by the third respondent, Enquiry Officer, who was a practising lawyer. There were, in all.19charges against the appellant out of which 17 were held to be proved, in this appeal before us, the same points which were urged before the learned Single Judge :ire again urged.

3. The following points arise for consideration:

"(1) Whether, the Regulations applicable to the officers of the Corporation contempted a second opportunity in regard to the 'action' proposed to be taken by the disciplinary authority and therefore the copy of the inquiry report should have been furnished?

(2) Whether a second opportunity against the 'action' to be taken or the 'punishment' to be awarded is part of general principles of natural justice applicable to all disciplinary actions other than those governed by Article 311(2) (as it stood before 1976) of the Constitution of India?

(3) Whether principles of natural justice are a facet of Article 14 of the Constitution of India after the Delhi Transport Corporation v. D.T.C. Mazdor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 and require a second opportunity to the officer of the Corporation at the stage of punishment by way of furnishing a copy of the inquiry report?

(4) Whether after the decision in Union of India v. Mohd.Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471, rendered on 20-11-1990 requiring copy of the inquiry report to be furnished in cases of Government servants applies only to cases of punishments awarded after 20-11-1990, even if it applied to the cases of the officer of the Corporation?

(5) Whether the other irregularities alleged by the Officer are proved and violate the order of punishment?"

4. Point No.l: The appellant is an officer of the Kerala State Handloom Development Corporation Ltd. It was registered as a company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. It is a State owned company.

5. The regulation relating to the disciplinary inquiry is contained in paragraph 4.17, which deals with penalties. Sub-clause (i) enumerates the various penalties that could be imposed on any employee. Sub-clause (ii) deals with the procedure for inquiry and punishment and reads as follows:

"(ii) No employee shall be subjected to the penalties in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-regulation (i) of this Regulation except by an order in writing signed by the Managing Director or any other officer empowered for the purpose and no such order shall be passed without the charges being formulated in writing and given to the employee so that he shall have reasonable opportunity to answer them in writing or in person as he prefers, and in the latter case, his defence may be taken down in writing and read to him:

Provided that the requirements of this sub-regulation may be waived if the facts on the basis of which action is to be taken have been established in a court of law or where the employee has absconded or it is for any other reason impracticable to communicate with him where there is difficulty in observing them and the requirements be waived without injustice to the employee. In every case where all or any of the requirements of this sub-regulation are waived reasons for so doing shall be recorded in writing:

Provided further that the final orders under item (i) of sub-regulation (i) shall be passed only by the appointing authority".

6. It will be noticed that the Regulation contemplates only one opportunity in relation to proof of the charges and no second opportunity is contemplated requiring a s