M. Jaichandren, J.

1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned.

2. This writ appeal has been filed against the order, dated 31.8.2009, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court, in W.P.No.35660 of 2006 (O.A.No.3810 of 1998). The petitioner in the writ petition, in W.P.No.35660 of 2006, is the appellant in the present writ appeal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

3.1. While the petitioner was working as an Executive Officer, in Seithur Town Panchayat, during the period, from 25.4.1977 to 3.5.1979, it had been alleged that he had misappropriated the funds of the panchayat. Therefore, certain charges had been framed against him, vide a charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Based on the said allegations, he had been imposed with the punishment of postponement of increment for three years, with cumulative effect. The said order had been passed by the Divisional Development Officer, Sivakasi, in his proceedings, dated 18.9.1980. The said punishment had been given effect to, from 3.10.1980.

3.2. It had been stated that the petitioner had preferred an appeal against the order of punishment imposed on him, before the District Collector concerned, on 3.12.1980. It had been alleged that the petitioner in the writ petition had manipulated the records and had obtained his promotion, as an Executive Officer, (Selection Grade). The manipulation of the records had been done by the petitioner in connivance with some other persons, who had been working along with the petitioner. Like wise, he had also obtained a favourable order from the District Collector concerned and had drawn a sum of Rupees 20,660/-, as arrears of pay, due from 1980 to 1991. When the manipulation, by the petitioner, had been deducted, a charge memo had been framed against the petitioner, on 6.11.1995. Thereafter, an enquiry had been conducted. In the said enquiry, the petitioner had remained ex parte. The Enquiry Officer had submitted a report, dated 30.8.1997, holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges levelled against him. A copy of the enquiry report had been furnished to the petitioner. Even though he had received the enquiry report, he had not submitted his explanation. Therefore, the second respondent had passed the impugned order, dated 15.2.1998, removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner had not filed an appeal against the said order. Instead, he had filed an original application before the Tribunal, in O.A.No.3810 of 1998. The said original application had been transferred to the file of this Court and renumbered as W.P.No.35660 of 2006.

3.3. The learned single Judge, by his order, dated 31.8.2009, made in W.P.No.35660 of 2006, had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner stating that the petitioner had not shown sufficient reasons for setting aside the impugned order passed by the second respondent, dated 15.2.1998.

3.4. The learned single Judge had observed that the punishment of dismissal from service had been imposed on the petitioner, after following all the necessary procedures, in terms of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. It had also been observed that, in spite of the report of the enquiry officer having been served on the petitioner, he had not chosen to submit a reply, within a reasonable time. The second respondent had passed the final order, dismissing the petitioner from service, after perusing all the relevant on records. As such, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is devoid of merits and therefore, it was liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, by his order, dated 31.8.2009.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant had submitted that a common enquiry had been conducted involving the appellant, the petitioner in the writ petition, and the other two persons, namely, Pachaiap