Judgment : Petitioner herein, a dismissed employee of Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, challenges his dismissal order as also the subsequent order confirming his dismissal by the Appellate Authority. 2. The petitioner, to begin with, joined his service as a Junior Assistant on 9. 1973 and thereafter, he was promoted as Assistant and continued as the Assistant till 23. 1991 when ultimately he was dismissed by the impugned order dated 23. 1991. 3. While working as an Assistant, a Departmental enquiry was ordered against the petitioner and as many as six charges were framed. They were as under: • 1. That Thiru A.Savariar, Assistant, ‘P’ section who was incharge of appointment of Chief Invigilators and Invigilators for the conduct of Main written Examination relating to the post of Assistant Surgeon in the Tamil Nadu Medical service for the year 1989-90 had served appointment order to Thiru R.Mahalingam, whom as on leave, to act as an Invigilator at Bharathiar Arts College for Women, Madras without obtaining the orders of the Officer incharge of the section.2. That, he has unauthorisedly issued orders of appointment as Invigilators to one Thiru Asir, School Assistant, Government Training School, Madras for Assistant Surgeon Examination held on 12. 1990 and 12. 1990 at Bharathiar Arts College for Women, North Madras though his name was not included in the list furnished by the Collector of Madras. .• 3. That, he deputed by orally instructing Thiru Khader Baig, Office Assistant of Commissions Office to the Examination hall unauthorisedly. .• 4. That, he has produced in the court while filing a petition for anticipatory bail the office note requiring him and certain other staff to attend office on 12. 1990 without the knowledge of the office. It is highly irregular to produce an official record in the court without the sanction of the competent authority. .• 5. That, he unauthorisedly went to the examination hall without any reason or orders by neglecting his office work for which he obtained permission to work on the holiday ( i.e., 12. 1990). .• 6. That he has arrogated to himself the powers of an officer and has functioned in a high handed manner. His explanation was sought. In his explanation he sought for an oral enquiry. The said enquiry was conducted on 30.8.1990 and 38. 1990. 1990). .• 6. That he has arrogated to himself the powers of an officer and has functioned in a high handed manner. His explanation was sought. In his explanation he sought for an oral enquiry. The said enquiry was conducted on 30.8.1990 and 38. 1990. The Enquiry Officer found him guilty on charge Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 while he was exonerated for the charge Nos.3 and 5. The Disciplinary Authority, who is the controller of Examinations therefore accepted the enquiry report and directed his dismissal by the order dated 23. 1991. 4. Against this order of dismissal, the petitioner preferred an appeal, However, even the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of dismissal by its elaborate order date 110. 1992. These two orders are now in challenge in the present writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr.V.Dhanapalan very strenuously urges firstly that in the enquiry the vital witnesses were never examined and those witnesses, who could have drawn the light on the allegations against the petitioner were deliberately left out. Mr.V.Dhanapalan took me firstly to the written statement filed by the petitioner and pointed out that according to him, the Chief Invigilators, the section Superintendent and the concerned under Secretary were not examined as the witnesses and their non-examination would vitiate the whole enquiry. 6. In sofar as the question of non-examination of the witnesses is concerned, it is the sole choice of the presenting officer to examine a particular witness. If the petitioner so felt that some other witnesses were necessary to unfold the truth, he was free to examine those witnesses. In this case considering the charges if the Department was satisfied in examining particular witnesses and not the others, it should have been the task on the part of the petitioner to examine those witnesses and point out the truth. In fact, considering the whole order of dismissal, as also the appellate order, it does not seem that the petitioner had any time insisted upon the examination of any particular witness. It cannot now therefore be suggested by the petitioner at the stage of the writ petition that a particular witness was not examined. I have seen the original dismissal order as also the appellate order. It cannot now therefore be suggested by the petitioner at the stage of the writ petition that a particular witness was not examined. I have seen the original dismissal order as also the appellate order. In fact, the appellate order discusses all the issues and all the charges thread bare on which the petitioner was found guilty by the Enquiring Officer. It cannot therefore be said that a prejudice has been caused to the petitioner in any manner by non-examination of certain other witnesses. Mr.V.Dhanapalan very heavily relied upon the Apex Courts judgment in Hardware Lal v. State of U.P. and others Hardware Lal v. State of U.P. and others Hardware Lal v. State of U.P. and others, J.T. (1999)8 S.C. 418. No doubt in that case it has been found that the non-examination of the complainant and the other constable, who had escorted the delinquent to the hospital was vital and had affected and vitiated the whole enquiry. However, such thing cannot be stated in respect of the witnesses who are being mentioned as not examined. The mere non-examination of the Superintendent of the section where the petitioner was working would be of no consequence particularly because it was firstly an admitted fact that the petitioner was in fact working in that particular section. Again he has not disputed the fact that he was the author of the appointment order of Thiru R.Mahalingam, who though on leave, was directed without any authorisation to serve as an Invigilators in the examination at Bharathiar Arts College for Women, Madras, It is established that in respect of the first charge the petitioner could not show any authorisation and it was also an admitted fact that the petitioner in his own rights could not have authorised any of the employees to work as the Invigilators in the examination. The first order as also the appellate order are more than clear in this respect. Therefore, the non-examination of the Superintendent by the Department would be of no consequence. The facts in the Apex Courts judgment are entirely different. There, the complainant himself was not examined and though the charge against the concerned delinquent was of drunkenness while on duty, the person, who accompanied the said delinquent to the hospital, himself was not examined. In those circumstances, the Apex Court took the view that the examination of those two witnesses was necessary. There, the complainant himself was not examined and though the charge against the concerned delinquent was of drunkenness while on duty, the person, who accompanied the said delinquent to the hospital, himself was not examined. In those circumstances, the Apex Court took the view that the examination of those two witnesses was necessary. It cannot then be disputed that the petitioner himself could have summoned the witnesses if he so felt that those witnesses would be able to unfold the truth. 7. The second question argued by the learned counsel is that the procedure in the departmental enquiry was defective and such defective procedure had vitiated the enquiry. Now in fact, it is clear from the dismissal order itself that the petitioner was given an opportunity to give his explanation, which he gave on 26. 1990. It was he, who called for an oral enquiry, and therefore, the oral enquiry was conducted in his presence on 30.8.1990 and 38. 1990. It is also an admitted position that the copy of the depositions recorded at the oral enquiry were also supplied to the petitioner and he was directed to submit further written statement of defence, if any, in the matter. He accordingly had actually submitted his further written statement on 11. 1990, and that on the basis, of this, ultimately the Enquiry Officer drew his report on 312. 1990, which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority by his elaborate order. One fails to follow in the circumstances as to which other procedure could have been taken by the Disciplinary Authority or the Enquiring Authority while conducting the disciplinary enquiry. Not only this, but thereafter also, it seems that a chance of appeal was availed by the petitioner and a proper appeal was filed, which was ultimately dismissed. 8. Mr.V.Dhanapalan pointed out that the dismissal order was signed by one Jagmohan Singh Raju, who has descried himself to be Controller of Examinations and Secretary incharge. He further pointed out that the appellate order has also been passed by the Secretary. The learned counsel fairly does not dispute that the Secretary is the Appellate Authority and the controller of Examinations was the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. He further pointed out that the appellate order has also been passed by the Secretary. The learned counsel fairly does not dispute that the Secretary is the Appellate Authority and the controller of Examinations was the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner. The learned counsel however contends that if at the time when the order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority was himself acting as the Secretary though an incharge Secretary, then the Appellate Authority should have been some other authority and not the Secretary as he is the case. I do not think so. It is to be realised that the order was signed by the Disciplinary Authority in his capacity as a controller of Examinations. He might have been acting as the Secretary in charge at that time, of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission. But that does not make him an appellate officer and therefore it cannot be said that the appeal against his order should lie to an Authority who was even higher to the secretary of the T.N.P.S.C. It cannot be disputed that the appellate order has been passed by the Secretary and he was some other officer on the date when the order was passed and not Mr.Jagmohan Singh Raju alone. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is any irregularity in passing the appellate order. 9. Mr.V.Dhanapalan, then contend that the Appellate Authority has relied upon the facts which were not even referred to by the Disciplinary Authority in the dismissal order and thereby the Appellate Authority has gone beyond the scope of an appeal under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. The learned counsel tried to suggest that the order of the Appellate Authority in this case was more elaborate than necessary and thus, the appellate order was vitiated. I do not think so. The appellate authority has considered the proved charges only, viz., charge Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 on which the petitioner has been found guilty. He has independently applied his mind and it is not the case as if he has considered any extraneous material than the one, which was available in the disciplinary proceedings. I do not think so. The appellate authority has considered the proved charges only, viz., charge Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 on which the petitioner has been found guilty. He has independently applied his mind and it is not the case as if he has considered any extraneous material than the one, which was available in the disciplinary proceedings. In fact the discussion on each charge is to be found in the appellate order and the Appellate Authority has clearly found that the appellant had passed the order of appointment of the Invigilators without any authority in him and without the approval of the concerned officers. He has also found that the plea of the appellant that the names of the officials deputed for invigilation work were got approved at a later stage after the examination was over, was also not correct and the Appellate Authority has clearly found that there is no evidence on record to corroborate that plea. He has also taken note of the fact that the appellant had made some entries in pencil and not in the ink. The Appellate Authority has also taken note of the evidence of Thiru Khader Baig. He also further has taken into consideration the shift in the stand by the delinquent-petitioner during the appeal. He has, therefore, concluded that the Disciplinary Authority had rightly held the charge No.1 as proved. Even regarding the other three charges, viz., charge Nos. 2 and 4 as also charge No.6, there seems to be enough material considered by the Appellate Authority which could not be contradicted before me. If this is so, then there would be no question of interference at this stage. 10. The learned counsel for the Government pointed out that it is the settled law now that the correctness of the findings cannot be questioned at the stage of the writ petition and the only scope in the writ petition is to see to whether the correct procedure was adopted while holding the Departmental enquiry and as to whether the findings were perverse or not. He has rightly urged that the court cannot go into the adequacy of the material and once it is found that there was material in support of the findings by the Disciplinary Authority, then there would be no question of interference. He has rightly urged that the court cannot go into the adequacy of the material and once it is found that there was material in support of the findings by the Disciplinary Authority, then there would be no question of interference. The learned Government Pleader relied upon the observations in Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K.Chopra Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K.Chopra Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K.Chopra , (1999)1 Supreme 110 and more particularly paragraphs 16 and 17. The law is undoubtedly binding on this Court and the petitioner therefore cannot be permitted to contend regarding the correctness of the finding. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner lastly drew my attention to the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Yoginath D.Badge v. State of Maharashtra Yoginath D.Badge v. State of Maharashtra Yoginath D.Badge v. State of Maharashtra , (1999(7 S.C.C. 739 and more particularly to paragraph 31 therein. The observations in paragraph 31 would not be applicable to the case at hands for the simple reason that here the Disciplinary Authority has accepted the enquiry reports and the findings of the Enquiry Authority and the Appellate Authority has also accepted the order of the Disciplinary Authority. It has not chosen to record its own findings. There was therefore no question of giving any hearing at any stage to the petitioner. The reliance is not called for. Lastly the learned counsel strenuously urged that the petitioner had 17 years of unblemished service and that he would be rendered jobless now. Unfortunately for the petitioner, both the authorities have also considered the question regarding the quantum and have come to the conclusion that considering the seriousness of the charges proved against the petitioner, the dismissal could be the only proper punishment. It is not for this Court to interfere in the punishment unless the punishment is shown to be disproportionate to the seriousness of the proved charges. Here from the charges it could be seen that the petitioner though had no authority, chose to appoint some persons as the Invigilators. He is also found guilty of appointing one Asir as an Invigilators in the examination held on 12. 1990 and 12. 1990 though his name was never included in the list and has thus acted in total derogation of his own powers. He is also found guilty of appointing one Asir as an Invigilators in the examination held on 12. 1990 and 12. 1990 though his name was never included in the list and has thus acted in total derogation of his own powers. He is also found guilty of showing the official record of the Government in his bail petition and filing it without there being nay authorisation for the same in the court of law. He is also found guilty of acting wholly without any authorisation and thereby has brought the working of the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission into a dispute. There is, therefore nothing wrong that such person is given the punishment of dismissal. On this ground also, the petitioner has no case. In that, the petition has no merits and must be dismissed and is accordingly ordered to be dismissed, but without any orders as to costs.