Judgment :- Dr.A.S.Anand, C.J.: This writ appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned judge in W.P.No.6056 of 1988 decided on 26.6.1991. 2. The respondent-writ petitioner had put in issue the order of termination of his services the appellants herein. A number of pleas were raised before the learned single support of the writ petition. The learned single Judge, however, considered two basic of the case and allowed the writ petition. The first question considered by the learned judge was with regard to the alleged violation of Rule 25 of the Conduct, Discipline Appeal Rules of the Corporation, and the second question was that since the employer, imposing the penalty of termination of service, had taken into account the objectionable conduct of the employee without putting him to notice and without making the objectionable past conduct as a part of the charge memo, the termination was bad. 3. Mr.Sanjay Mohan, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the interpretation placed by the learned single Judge on Rule 25 (Supra) is not correct. Learned submitted that the employer was entitled to take into account the past conduct, employee had been perpetually negligent, before imposing the penalty. 4. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that the employee been put on notice about the intention of the employer to take the past conduct consideration. We have gone through the counter affidavit filed by the employer and that the past conduct of the writ petitioner was taken into consideration, not for the of determination of any mitigating or extenuating circumstance to impose the punishment, but for imposing the extreme penalty itself. Since the past conduct or service has been taken as an act on the part of the employee warranting the extreme without the employee being put to notice, the learned single Judge was perfectly justified holding that the principles of natural justice had been violated by the impugned proceedings: The view of the learned single Judge on that aspect is unexceptionable and is in accordance with the Judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Management of Madras Fertilisers v. First Addl. Labour Court, (1990)1 L.L.J. 298 , and the view of the Supreme Associated Cement Companies v. T.C.Srivastava, A.I.R 1984 S.C. 1227: 1984 Lab.I.C. (1984)64 F.J.R. 442: (1984)2 Lab.L.J. 105. Labour Court, (1990)1 L.L.J. 298 , and the view of the Supreme Associated Cement Companies v. T.C.Srivastava, A.I.R 1984 S.C. 1227: 1984 Lab.I.C. (1984)64 F.J.R. 442: (1984)2 Lab.L.J. 105. A Bench of this Court had occasion to the aforesaid two judgments in Engine Valves Ltd v. Labour Court, Madras and (1991)1 L.L.J. 372 , and opined that where reference was made to the past record of only with a view to find out whether there was any mitigating or extenuating circumstance favour of the employee, the desirability of putting the employee on notice need insisted upon. But where the past conduct on record of service is taken as an act by impose the punishment, that cannot be done without putting the employee to notice. therefore, in agreement with the learned single Judge that the impugned order stood on account of the violation of the principle, of natural justice. Since, we are upholding order of the learned Single Judge, on that ground, we refrain from expressing any opinion the question of interpretation of Rule 25 (Supra), and leave that issue open to be interpreted and decided in an appropriate case at an appropriate time. 5. Thus, for what we have said above the writ appeal fails and is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.