Ignorance of law is not an excuse, and the seriousness of admitted and proved charges justifies appropriate punishment.

The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of termination passed by the first respondent dated 38. 1998, confirmed by the second respondent by order dated 12. 1998 and for a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was selected as Grade-II Police Constable by the Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board. Petitioner joined duty on 23. 1998 at Central Prison, Chennai-3. He continued in the said post till 38. 1998, i.e., the date of order of dismissal from service passed against him.

3. The petitioner was served with a charge memo on 24. 1998 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, and called upon to submit his explanation within fifteen days. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 5. 1998 and the explanation having been found not satisfactory, the first respondent suspended the petitioner from service by order dated 15. 1998, pending enquiry into the charges. On 6. 1998 another charge memo under Rule 17(b) was issued to the petitioner stating that while the Jail Superintendent made inspection on 15. 1998 in the early morning, the petitioner was found sleeping before the entrance of the old hospital, which is contrary to Rule 126 and 380 of the Tamil Nadu Jail Manual and also Rule 20 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules. Petitioner submitted explanation to the said charge memo also. The first respondent by order dated 24. 1998 appointed the Additional Superintendent of Central Jail, Chennai-3 as Enquiry Officer, who conducted enquiry and submitted the minutes, which was served on the petitioner by the first respondent along with memo dated 17. 1998 with a direction to offer his remarks within seven days. Petitioner submitted his remarks with regard to the Enquiry Officers report. Again, the petitioner was summoned for enquiry on 7. 1998 with respect to the second charge memo wherein he participated and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, which was also furnished to the petitioner with a memo calling for remarks, for which the petitioner sought for time to submit his remarks. Petitioner further states that by order dated 38. 1998 he was dismissed from service. The appeal filed before the second respondent was also dismissed by order dated 12. 1998 and the said orders are challenged in the O.A.No.4054 of 1999, which is now transferred and numbered as the above writ petition.

4. The grounds raised in the writ petition are that the petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself before the order of dismissal; that the show cause notice was issued proposing penalty along with enquiry repot; that his request for further time to submit remarks for second enquiry report was not granted; that the petitioner was not allowed to cross examine the official witnesses; and that the Enquiry Officer not followed the procedures while conducting the enquiry.

5. The respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that for the charge memo dated 28. 1998 the petitioner was suspended pending enquiry and no final order is passed with regard to the second charge memo dated 6. 1998 since the petitioner has not filed remarks for the enquiry officers report, and in the enquiry conducted for the second charge memo, the petitioner failed to attend. The dismissal order was passed for the proven charges issued in the first charge memo. The minutes of the Enquiry Officer was drawn for the two charges and copy of the same was forwarded to the petitioner and he originally sought for seven days time and again requested further time of seven days and once again requested 15 days time by stating that he could not be in a position to give reply. Since no reply was received, the Disciplinary Authority examined the Enquiry Officers report carefully and after finding that both the charges are proved, imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by order dated 38. 199