Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. This writ petition is directed against the order of the third respondent dated 9. 2003, as confirmed by the second respondent being the Appellate Authority by order dated 6. 2004 and ultimately, confirmed in the revision by the first respondent by order dated 4. 2005, stated to have been served on the petitioner on 26. 2008.

3. The petitioner, who was working as a Wireman under the respondent/Electricity Board, was issued a charge memo framing the following charges:

"The Charge No.1 is that the petitioner had demanded Rs.2 each in total Rs.50/-from M/s.Senthil Kumar and Nagaraj for rectifying the Street lights in Nathakkadaiyur Village and he had received Rs.260/-from one Thangavel towards ACCT payment for S.C.No.373 and the above said amount was not paid to the account of the Board. That apart he received each Rs.200/-from K.Selvaraj, N.Moorthy and N.Semalaiappan for the replacing the damaged electricity post.

The Charge No.2 is that the Assistant Engineer issued a memo to the petitioner on 30.10.2001 as to why the street lights were not rectified and on 310. 2001, the petitioner was assigned to execute the repair work, but he did not execute the work till 310. 2001, thus there was delay of 15 days in executing the work and that when L.Periyasamy made a complaint on 12. 2002, that the street lights got repaired and even though the Assistant Engineer directed the petitioner to complete the work and only after the work was assigned to him duty register, next day he completed the work. Thus, he had disobeyed the orders of the superior.

The Charge No.3 is that when the Assistant Engineer the petitioner why he has not completed the work the petitioner told one S.Periyasamy that the petitioner is not afraid even if he makes a complaint to the Chief Minister and that when Senthil Kumar and Nagaraj on 210. 2001 requested the petitioner to rectify the street light the petitioner have demanded Rs.2/- each to be paid by the panchayat.

The Charge No.4 is that on 110. 2001 when Senthil Kumar and Nagaraj requested the petitioner to rectify the street lights, but he had not executed the work. That apart he had received Rs.200/- each from Selvaraj, Moorthy and Semalaiappan for replacing the damaged Electric Posts. Even after 3 months he had not executed the work."

4. An enquiry was conducted after receiving explanation from the petitioner and the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 5. 2003 has given a finding that except Charge No.3 and the first part of Charge No.1, all other charges are proved.

5. A show cause notice was issued for the proposed punishment of compulsory retirement, for which the petitioner has given a reply. Thereafter, the third respondent has passed the final order dated 9. 2003 imposing a punishment of compulsory retirement. As against the said order of the third respondent, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the second respondent, who, by order dated 6. 2004, has rejected the appeal by confirming the order of the third respondent. A revision filed against the said order of the Appellate Authority by the petitioner was also rejected by the first respondent by order dated 4. 2005. It is the case of the petitioner that even the impugned order of the first respondent was served only after a writ petition was filed in W.P.No.9275 of 2008 and thereafter, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the said impugned order.

6. Mr.L.Chandrakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. That apart, the report of the Enquiry Officer has been simply accepted by the Appellate Authority without any further application of mind and the Appellate Authority has passed a single line order, which is against the Regulations governing the respondent/Electricity