Delinquent officer represented by counsel at the enquiry.

G. Ramanujam, J.

1. The appellant herein who was working as Head Assistant, Taluk Office, Tiruchendur from 24th February, 1973 to 10th August, 1973, was alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs. 100 from one Meerathambi of Kayalpatnam on 9th August, 1973 at Tiruchendur for issuing a solvency certificate in the name of the mother of Meerathambi and accepted the Bribe amount of Rs. 100 from Meerathambi on 10th August, 1973 and it was proposed to initiate proceedings against him under Sections 5(1)(a) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. He was also arrested by the Police on 10th August, 1973. Taking note of his arrest by the police for charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he was temporarily suspended from service. Later the proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act were dropped as a result of which the appellant was restored to duty on 2nd September, 1974.

2. However, the Department initiated the disciplinary proceedings in relation to the same allegation of acceptance of bribe by the appellant from Meerathambi on 10th August, 1973 and a charge memo. was issued to the appellant on 14th November, 1974, wherein he was asked to give his explanation. Along with the charge memo a questionnaire was enclosed wherein the appellant was asked to state whether he wanted an enquiry in relation to the charge or a personal hearing. While submitting the explanation for the charge levelled against him, the appellant requested in the questionnaire form sent to him that he may be heard in person without an oral enquiry. The Department, however, chose to conduct an oral enquiry and at the stage of the enquiry 11 witnesses were examined on the side of the Department and 2 witnesses were examined in defence. During the enquiry the appellant was represented by counsel who not only cross-examined the witnesses produced by the Department and examined in chief the defence witnesses but also submitted his arguments at the close of the enquiry. Thereafter, the enquiry officer gave his findings on 29th December, 1975, holding that the charge framed against the appellant stood proved.

3. On receipt of the finding from the enquiry officer, the Disciplinary authority who is the Collector of Tirunelveli in this case accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice calling upon the appellant to show cause why a punishment by way of dismissal from service, should not be imposed. The appellant submitted his explanation on 19th January, 1976. After going through the findings of the enquiry officer as also the explanation furnished by the appellant, the Disciplinary authority dismissed the appellant from service by his order, dated 27th April, 1976. As against the order of dismissal the appellant filed an appeal before the Board of Revenue on 24th May, 1976. Under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. The Board of Revenue has dismissed the appeal by its order, dated 4th September, 1976, merely stating as follows:

The Board has examined the appeal petition of Thiru G. Srinivasan, with connected" records. It sees no reason to interfere with the orders of the Collector of Tirunelveli. The appeal is accordingly rejected as devoid of merits.

4. As against the dismissal of the appeal by the Board of Revenue, the appellant filed a revision petition to the Government under Rule 36 of the said rules. The Government having dismissed the revision petition, the appellant approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No. 1418 of 1978, for quashing the original order of dismissal passed by the Collector as confirmed by the Board of Revenue in appeal and by the Government in revision.

5. In the writ petition the appellant has put forward mainly three grounds of attack. One was that the enquiry officer, though conducted an oral enquiry in relation to the charge in the presence of the appellant, had not given an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant as required b