ORDER :

The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1119/2010Thu.Va.Tha.1, dated 23.02.2011, whereby, confirming the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.Nil, dated 28.01.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all backwages and other benefits.

2. The petitioner was working as Salesman at the second respondent Society, while so, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him, under which, charges were framed, enquiry was conducted and all the four charges framed against the petitioner since has been proved as per the report of the Enquiry Officer, accepting the same, the second respondent has inflicted the punishment of removal of service against the petitioner, by order dated 28.01.2010. Felt aggrieved over the same, he has filed Revision before the first respondent and the Revisional Authority, after having considered the Revision, has rejected the same, by order dated 23.02.2011. Challenging both these orders, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who would submit that, though four charges were framed against the petitioner and enquiry was conducted, where, ultimately, the Enquiry Officer has given his findings that, all the four charges were proved against the petitioner, the fact remains, according to him that, in respect of first charge, the amount of shortage to the extent of Rs.26,806.50/- though was admitted by the petitioner, the said amount partly was paid immediately and the remaining amount, the petitioner undertook to pay immediately.

4. In respect of the other charges also, whatever the alleged loss sustained by the second respondent Society, the same had been paid back and this has been taken note of by the Enquiry Officer, however, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that, the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved.

5. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the findings given in the Enquiry Officer's report, where the specific stand taken by the petitioner was that, the amount allegedly lost by the second respondent Society had been paid back by the petitioner. In this regard, he has relied upon the following portion of the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, which reads as follows:

“Other Language”

6. He would also submit that, even in reply given to the first charge, which is vague, as if that, the resolution passed by the second respondent dated 26.05.2008 has not been followed by the petitioner, therefore, against the vague charge also, proper explanation was given by the petitioner, that was also not properly considered by the Enquiry Officer, therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, based on the said Enquiry Officer's report, the punishment made against the petitioner, that too a major punishment of removal of service ought not to have been inflicted. When this was questioned in the Revision before the first respondent, the said authority also has not considered the same in proper prospective. Therefore, both the orders are liable to be interfered with, he contended.

7. Per contra, L.P. Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that, the four charges framed against the petitioner, in fact had been accepted by the petitioner in his defence statement, that has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In respect of the shortage pertaining to the first three charges, those shortages were accepted by the petitioner and in this regard, though he claimed that, he paid back the amount, in respect of the first charge that the shortage amount is Rs.26,806