Punishment is meant to mend offender and not to strangulate.

S.K. Krishnan, J.

Aggrieved by the orders of the Transport Commissioner in R.No.29298./V4/91 (E.O.No.294 of 2000) dated 6.6.2000 and the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai, passed in O.A.No.4144 of 2002 dated 27.6.2002, the petitioner has filed this writ pe­tition for issuing a writ of certiorari.

2. The case of the del inquest/petitioner is as follows:

(a) The petitioner was appointed on 15.11.1983 as Motor Vehicles Inspector Grade II in the, Transport Department through the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. The petitioner was served with a charge memo, dated 22.11.1995 by the first respondent alleging that while the petitioner was working as Motor Vehicles In­ specter Grade II Saidapet at Meenambakkam Unit Office, he abused his official position to got bribe, The said charge has been framed against the petitioner under Rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services Rules (D&A) Rules. In the charge memo, three charges were framed and the petitioner was asked to submit his ex­ plantation within 15 days. The petitioner sub­mitted his explanation on 1.8.1996. After con­ducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report stating that the charge against the petitioner was proved. Thereafter a copy of the enquiry report was furnished to the peti­tioner on 21.2.2000 by the Deputy Transport Commissioner asking the petitioner to submit farther representation if any. On 3 1.3.2000, first respondent furnished a copy of the additional report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner and also asked him to submit further representation, if any. The second respondent also sent a letter to the petitioner in Lr.No.Confdl.22/97 dated 11.3.2000. The petitioner filed his explanations dated 12.4.2000 and 24.4.2000. As the Transport Commissioner did not (sic) satisfy with the explanation offered by the petitioner, on the basis of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, he passed an order dated 6.6.2000 dismissing the petitioner from service.

3. As against the order passed by the Transport Commissioner dated 6.6.2000 the petitioner approached the Tribunal for quashing the same.

4. The Tribunal, after analyzing the entire facts relating to the three charges against the petitioner, has come to the conclusion that the finding of the Enquiry Officer as well as the impugned order was justified.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for the above said relief.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the Transport Commissioner has merely and mechanically followed the report of the Enquiry Officer without any application of mind and has failed to exercise his jurisdiction.

7. Further, the learned counsel would emphasize that the statement of the official witnesses, which are said to have been recorded during the course of preliminary enquiry and which have been relied on in the enquiry report of the second respondent, were not furnished to the petitioner along with the charge memo by violating the principles of natural justice and hence the entire proceedings are vitiated.

8. Further, the learned counsel would emphasise that though the independent witnesses did not support the case put forth by the authorities, the first respondent Transport Commissioner based on the statements of the officials and of the report of the Enquiry Officer concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved and imposed a punishment of dismissal, which is against law.

9. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions in support of his contention:

(a) State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mokit Sharif (Dead) through Legal Representatives, A.I.R. 1982, S. C. 937; (b) The State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram, A.I.R.1974 S.C.2335; (c) State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Home (Police) Department and others v. S. Mahalingant and Others, C.D.J. 2005 M.H.C. 826.

10. Per contra, it is emphasised by the learned Gov