The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adherence to the principles of natural justice, fair opportunity for the delinquent employee to respond to the Enquiry Officer's findings, and proper consideration of appeals as per Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

1. Theprayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of punishment passed by the first respondent dated 14. 2004 confirming the order passed by the second respondent dated 112. 2004 and direct the first respondent to pay the petitioners arrears of salary of Rs.91,135/-accrued upto November, 2006 and the monthly salary at the rate of Rs.12,165/- from December, 2006 onwards.

2. Thebrief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

.(a) Thepetitioner is employed in Guindy Childrens Park as Driver. While he was working in the Headquarters Wildlife Range, Velacherry, Chennai-32, the first respondent placed the petitioner under suspension by order dated 210. 2003 pending contemplation of enquiry into grave charges.

.(b) The said order of suspension was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A.No.1340 of 2004 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. The original application was disposed of with direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner and extract work by granting liberty to proceed against the petitioner as per the rules by order dated 23. 2004 and the petitioner was restored to duty on 24. 2004.

.(c) A charge memo was issued to the petitioner on 111. 2003 stating that the petitioner did not obey the orders of the higher officials of the Range, negligent in his duties, and that, the petitioner was rude towards the Forester and other Officers.

.(d) The reason for issuing the charge memo was that the petitioner refused to drive the Jeep (TAH 1844) for carrying two accused persons involved in a forest offence to the VII Judicial Magistrates Court, George Town, Chennai. According to the petitioner, on 210. 2003, when the petitioner was asked to drive a Jeep at about 4.45 p.m., there was rain; in the said jeep the wiper was not working and therefore petitioner politely told the Officer that he will drive the vehicle once the rain was over; and after the rain was over, he expressed his readiness to drive the vehicle(jeep).

.(e) According to the petitioner, when he was about to start the jeep, the Forester got off from the vehicle to attend a phone call and after attending the phone call, he came back and told that he need not drive the jeep for the said trip and engaged one Lakshmanan to drive the jeep. Petitioner was asked to wait in the office. The said Lakshmanan drove the jeep along with the accused persons.

.(f) Due to the above said reason the petitioner was placed under suspension. Petitioner submitted his explanation on 22. 2004 and denied the charges. Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted enquiry and the petitioner due to his ill-health could not participate in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry in the absence of the petitioner and submitted the report on 13. 2004.

.(g) The petitioner was not furnished with the Enquiry Officers report before the same was accepted by the first respondent and by order dated 14. 2004 the first respondent passed an order of punishment imposing stoppage of increment for six years with cumulative effect. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing appeal before the second respondent, which was rejected by order dated 112. 2004, against which this writ petition is filed.

.(h) The contentions raised in the writ petition are that the charges issued against the petitioner are vague; that the petitioners explanation for not driving the Jeep at the relevant point of time due to rain and absence of wiper in the vehicle was not considered; that no finding is given by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the explanation given by the petitioner and no reason is given as to why the same cannot be accepted; that the Enquiry Officer failed to prove the charges by calling independent witnesses; that the Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry even though the petitioner was not able to attend the enquiry due to his illness; that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is one sided; that the first respondent relying on