The court emphasized the importance of conducting enquiries in accordance with Service Rules and upheld the adequacy of the punishment of dismissal from service.

R. BANUMATHI, J.

This Appeal arises out of the Order in W.P.No.14467 of 1991 dismissing the Writ Petition and declining to quash the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the Appellant.

2. The brief facts, which led to filing of Writ Petition, are as follows:

Appellant joined Government Pressure Die Casting Unit, Guindy, then under the Control of the Department of Industries and Commerce, Government of Tamil Nadu as a Foreman Trainee on 10.3.1965. He has held various positions in Department of Industries and Commerce and he was promoted as Assistant Director of Industries and Commerce in Salem. During July, 1974, he was deputed to Tamil Nadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO) and posted as Assistant Development Officer in the Raw Material Division. Within months of his deputation to SIDCO, Government selected him for the assignment of "Management by Objectives" Adviser for SIDCO as well as the Industries Department. For various irregularities noticed in the distribution of raw materials during the period when he worked as Manager, Raw Materials and also for staying away from duty unauthorisedly, 17 charges were framed against the Appellant. The Appellant was served with a memo dated 15.6.1987 containing as many as 17 charges. On receipt of charge memo, Appellant made a request before the Chairman and Managing Director for supply of relevant documents pertaining to the memo dated 15.6.1987 to enable him to answer the charges.

3. One Mr.V.Gunalan, General Manager was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer asked the Appellant to appear for enquiry on 20.1.1988 and again on 25.1.1988. Inspite of repeated opportunities, the Appellant was insisting for furnishing of certain records and he did not cooperate in the enquiry. The enquriy was fixed on 9.5.1988. Insisting for furnishing of documents, the Appellant is said to have left the enquiry. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer held enquiry and submitted a report dated 22.6.1988 holding that all charges were proved.

4. Though the Enquiry Officer has submitted that all the 17 charges were proved, the disciplinary authority after analysing the report of the Enquiry Officer, with reference to Charges, ultimately came to the conclusion that Charge Nos.1, 2, 5, 6, 11, 12, 16 and 17 alone were proved and that Charge Nos. 14 and 15 were partly proved. So far as the other charge Nos.3,4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 13, the disciplinary authority held that they were not proved. Taking note of the gravity of proved charges on the basis of service rules, the 1st Respondent passed orders imposing punishment of dismissal from service. Against the said order, Appellant preferred an Appeal before the Chairman, Tamilnadu Small Industries Development Corporation Limited (SIDCO). Having regard to gravity of proved charges, it was resolved to reject the Appeal Petition preferred by the Appellant. The Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the Managing Director dated 4.5.1989 dismissing the Appellant from service of the Corporation. Challenging the punishment of dismissal from service, Appellant filed W.P.No.14467 of 1991. The learned single Judge held that the enquiry was held in accordance with the Service Rules and after giving sufficient opportunities to the Appellant. Insofar as the contention that the disciplinary authority ought to have afforded further opportunity, the learned single Judge held that since the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer was against the Appellant and that has been modified by the disciplinary authority, and that the Appellant succeeded to some extent before the disciplinary authority, the learned single Judge held that the contingency of issuing further show cause notice has not arisen. Pointing out that the disciplinary authority considered that the punishment of dismissal from service is adequate and sufficient punishment, which is in accordance with Rule 6.15(b) of the Rules, the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition