ORDER: Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent Chairman, Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation, Madras-2 dated 15.2.1994, confirming the order of the third respondent, dismissing him from service, the petitioner has filed the above writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner is briefly stated hereunder: The petitioner joined the services of the first respondent as a Sales Assistant in the Poompuhar Sales showroom at Bombay and due to administrative reasons he was transferred to Tamil Nadu State. While so, he received a charge memo dated 10.12.1991 in and by which certain charges of unauthorised absence and carrying on private business were alleged against him. He submitted his explanation on 22.4.1992. Not satisfied with the explanation, a domestic enquiry was instituted and after a fare of an enquiry, he was found guilty and the third respondent passed the order of removal from service on 6.4.1993. By order dated 15.2.1994, the second respondent dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of removal passed by the third respondent, hence the present writ petition. 3. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Handicrafts Development Corporation, Chennai-2, has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that, when the petitioner worked at Bombay he has availed L.T.C. declaring Tirunelveli as his Home Town. His family was living in Bombay to carry out his private business. He had been absent from duty at very frequent intervals, dislocating the function in the working places where he was posted for more than two years over a period of five years. Only when such facts surfaced, he was charge sheeted. An oral enquiry was conducted in a perfect manner before finalizing the case. His appeal was rejected by the chairman-second respondent, after fully examined the facts of the case. The charges of unauthorised absence and private trade had been found proved. Whenever he had to visit Bombay he had to leave the place of duty unauthorizedly in order to carry out his private business. The prayer in the writ petition is defective and no relief could be granted to the petitioner. 4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as respondents. 5. Mr. The prayer in the writ petition is defective and no relief could be granted to the petitioner. 4. In the light of the above pleadings, I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner as well as respondents. 5. Mr. R.Viduthalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after taking me through the entire enquiry proceedings, order of the third respondent removing the petitioner from service as well as the order of the second respondent dismissing the appeal, has raised the following contentions. “(1) None of the charges levelled against the petitioner fall under enumerated” misconduct “ of the Service Rules of the respondent Corporation; (2) Enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law; (3) Enquiry report was not furnished before passing the order of dismissal from service; (4) Findings rendered by both the authorities are perverse; and (5) Punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the proved misconduct. 6. On the other hand, Mr.N. Jothy, learned counsel appearing for the respondents after taking me through the charges levelled against the petitioner, Service Rules of the Corporation and the orders of both the authorities would contend that the charges levelled against the petitioner are enumerated” misconduct “ as provided in the Service Rules. He also contended that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and the petitioner was given adequate opportunity. Based on the overwhelming evidence, the disciplinary authority taking note of the gravity of proved charges, imposed appropriated punishment, namely dismissal from service, accordingly there is no ground for interference by this Court exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 8. In view of the fact that I have already narrated the case of the petitioner and the respondents in the earlier part of my order, it is unnecessary to refer the same once again. 7. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 8. In view of the fact that I have already narrated the case of the petitioner and the respondents in the earlier part of my order, it is unnecessary to refer the same once again. The charges levelled against the petitioner are as follows: ”Charge No.1: That he had unauthorizedly absented himself from duty from 21.5.1991 to 26.6.1991 and from 6.7.1991 to 26.7.1991 attracting Rule 3.6 (general conditions) 5.2 (a), 5.2 (f) and 5.2 (h) of the Services Rules of the Corporation.“ ”Charge No.2: That he had handicrafts business dealings with Thiru Raghavan and Thiru Perumal of Kancheepuram in procuring paper toys and dolls using his official position attracting Rules 3.2 (c) and 5.2 (j) read with Rule 5.1 (c) of the Service Rules of the Corporation.“ ”Charge No.3: That he along with Thiru V.Jeyaraj, Office Superintendent (under suspension) has procured handicrafts of several item from Thiru Kumaresan of Modaiyur and Thiru M.K. Duroisamy of Kallakurichi, etc., during August-September 91 and sold handicrafts at Tri Murthy Emporium, Bombay during September, 1991 when the Corporation conducted “Ganesh” Exhibition at Bombay, attracting Rules 5.2 (c) and 5.2 (j) read with rule 5.1 (c) of the Service Rules of the Corporation.“ 9. Though Mr.R.Viduthalai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that as a first point, none of the charges fall under enumerated” misconduct “ of the Corporation’s Service Rules, in the explanation dated 22.4.1992 offered by the petitioner he has not raised the said objection. On the other hand, after furnishing the details with reference to each charge, he has prayed that after accepting his explanation all the three charges may be dropped. 10. Rule 5.2 enumerates various acts/omission as misconduct”. For unauthorized absence from duty on various dates, after referring the general condition 3.6, the charge memo specifically refers to 5.2 (a), 5.2 (f) and 5.2 (h). 5.2 (a) refers wilful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with another or others, of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. Sub-rule (f) speaks about the repeated absence without prior permission and Sub-rule (h) speaks about repeated breach of any rules in force. 11. 5.2 (a) refers wilful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with another or others, of any lawful and reasonable order of a superior. Sub-rule (f) speaks about the repeated absence without prior permission and Sub-rule (h) speaks about repeated breach of any rules in force. 11. Charge No.2 relates to his business dealings with Raghavan and Perumal of Kancheepuram in procuring toys and dolls using his official position attracting Rules 5.2 (c) and 5.2 (j) read with rule 5.1 (c) of the Corporation’s Service Rules. 5.2 (j) speaks about engaging in private trade while in the employment of the corporation and 5.1 (c) expects that every employee shall serve the corporation honestly and faithfully and shall use his utmost endeavours to promote the interest of the corporation. It also expects that every employee shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and shall do nothing which is unbecoming of an employee of the corporation. Since the allegation is that he had business dealings with third parties in procuring paper toys and dolls using his official position, which attracts the above Service Rules. 12. Charge No.3 speaks about involvement of the petitioner and one V. Jeyaraj, Office Superintendent in procuring handicrafts of several items from third parties during August-September, 1991 and sold the same at Trimurthy Emporium, Bombay during September, 1991 when the Corporation conducted Ganesh Exhibition at Bombay attracting Rule 5.2 (c) and 5.2 (j) read with 5.1 (c) of the Service Rules. Rule 5.2 (c) refers theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the corporation’s business or property. Sub-rule (j) speaks about engaging a private trade while in the employment of the corporation and 5.1 (c) expects every employee shall serve the corporation honestly and faithfully. The perusal of the three charges, details furnished in support of the charges as well as the details of the misconduct in the Service Rules clearly show that all the charges fall under the “enumerated misconduct” as referred to above. I am satisfied that the third respondent is fully justified in framing the charges and I reject the contention that the disciplinary proceedings is without jurisdiction. In case of Glaxo Lab. I am satisfied that the third respondent is fully justified in framing the charges and I reject the contention that the disciplinary proceedings is without jurisdiction. In case of Glaxo Lab. (I) Ltd. v. Labour Court, Meerut, (1984)1 L.L.J. 16 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that, “20......It is therefore, obligatory upon the employer to draw up with precision of those acts of omission and commission which in his industrial establishment would constitute misconduct. Penalty is imposed for misconduct. The workman must therefore, know in advance which act or omission which constitute misconduct as to be visited with penalty. The statutory obligation is to prescribe with precision in the standing order all those acts of omission or commission which would constitute misconduct....” The same view has been expressed in a case of A.L. Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., (1984)2 L.L.J. 186 . Though Mr.Viduthalai has very much relied on both the above referred decisions in support of his first contention, in view of my conclusion referred to above, I am of the view that the respondents have not violated those established principles. 13. I shall consider the following three contentions together, namely, enquiry not conducted in accordance with law; enquiry report not furnished before passing order of dismissal and finding of the Enquiry Officer were perverse. First of all, the claim that enquiry is not conducted in accordance with law is a general and vague statement. It is not disputed that after communication of the charges levelled against him the petitioner was directed to submit his written explanation within 15 days from the date of receipt of the charge memorandum. A questionnaire form for oral enquiry/ personal hearing has also been enclosed. In the same proceedings, he was directed to return the questionnaire duly filed in specifically indicating whether he desires a personal hearing also. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 22.4.1992. Even during the enquiry, the petitioner has not complained anything against the way in which the enquiry was conducted. In other words, he has no grievance against the mode of enquiry or against the Enquiry officer. He has not complained of the violation of natural justice or audi alterm partem. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed the entire enquiry proceedings for perusal of the Court. In other words, he has no grievance against the mode of enquiry or against the Enquiry officer. He has not complained of the violation of natural justice or audi alterm partem. 14. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed the entire enquiry proceedings for perusal of the Court. It clearly shows that the petitioner was given adequate opportunity in the domestic enquiry and witnesses were examined in his presence. He participated in the domestic enquiry. He had examined himself and offered explanation. He went though every document and the documents were marked in his presence. He has cross examined the witnesses also. Thus it made it clear, that every opportunity was provided to him during domestic enquiry. He failed to produce relevant documents in support of his stand. He has admitted the business run by his wife and mother-in-law and his able support to the said business. He also admitted that he had passed on money to the suppliers of the private business. The reading of the entire enquiry report clearly shows the manner in which he was found guilty in all the charges. I am satisfied that the petitioner was given adequate and ample opportunity to put forth his case and the enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper manner. 15. Regarding non-supply of Enquiry Officer’s report, first of all there is non provision in the Service Rules for furnishing of second show cause notice and copy of the Enquiry Officer’s report. The issue relating to submission of Enquiry Officer’s report along with the second show cause notice, started mainly with the case of Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991)1 S.C.C. 588 and the issue was further analysed by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the matter of Managing Director, E.C.I.L. Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others, (1993)4 S.C.C. 727 and the said issue was again analysed in the latest one reported in State of U.P. v. Harendra Harora and another, (2001)3 C.T.C. 176. 16. Since the latest decision, namely State of U.P. v. Harendra Harora and another, (2001)3 C.T.C. 176 considers the Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991)1 S.C.C. 588 and Managing Director, E.C.I.L. Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others, (1993)4 S.C.C. 727 , I am not referring to the principles enunciated therein. 16. Since the latest decision, namely State of U.P. v. Harendra Harora and another, (2001)3 C.T.C. 176 considers the Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991)1 S.C.C. 588 and Managing Director, E.C.I.L. Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others, (1993)4 S.C.C. 727 , I am not referring to the principles enunciated therein. In (2001)3 C.T.C. 176, their Lordships, after referring to question No.(V) i.e., "What is the effect of the non-furnishing of the report of the order of punishment", as has been answered by the constitution bench in paras.30 and 31 of the judgment held, "Hence, in all cases where the enquiry officer’s report is not furnished to the delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings, the Courts and Tribunals should case the copy of the report to be furnished to the aggrieved employee if he has not already secured it before coming to the Court/Tribunal and give the employee an opportunity to show how his or her case was prejudiced because of the non-supply of the report. If after hearing the parties, the Court/Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the non-supply of the report would have made no difference to the ultimate findings and the punishment given, the Court/Tribunal should not interfere with the order of punishment. The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The Courts should avoid resorting to short cuts. Since it is the Courts/Tribunals which will apply their judicial mind to have question and give their reasons for setting aside of not setting aside the order of punishment (and not any internal appellate or revisional authority), there would be neither a breach of the principles of natural justice nor a denial of the reasonable opportunity. It is the only if the Court/Tribunal finds that the furnishing of the report would have made a difference to the result in the case that it should set aside the order of punishment." "13....The matter may be examined from another view point. There may be cases where there are infractions of statutory provisions, rules and regulations. Can it be said that every such infraction would make the consequent action void and / or in valid? There may be cases where there are infractions of statutory provisions, rules and regulations. Can it be said that every such infraction would make the consequent action void and / or in valid? The statute may contain certain substantive provision e.g. who is the competent authority to impose a particular punishment on a particular theory of substantial compliance may not be available. For example, where a rule specifically provides that the delinquent officer shall be given an opportunity to produce evidence in support of his case after the close of the evidence of the other side and if no such opportunity is given, it would not be possible to say that the inquiry was not vitiated. But in respect of many procedural provisions, it would be possible to apply the theory of substantial compliance or the test of prejudices, as the case may be. Even amongst procedural provisions, there may be some provisions of a fundamental nature which case the theory of substantial compliance may not be available, but the question of prejudice may be material. In respect of procedural provisions other than of a fundamental nature, the theory of substantial compliance objections on this score we have to be judged on the touchstone of prejudice. The test would be, whether the delinquent officer had or did not have a fair hearing. In the case of Russel v. Duke of Norfolk and others, (1949)1 All E.R. 109, it was laid down by the Court of Appeal that the principle of natural justice cannot be reduced to any hard and fast formulae and the same cannot be put in a straitjacket as its applicability depends upon the context and the facts and circumstances of each case." After saying so, their Lordships have concluded, "23. Thus, from a conspectus of the aforesaid decisions and different provisions of law noticed, we hold that provisions in Rule 55-A of the Rules for furnishing copy of enquiry report is procedural one and for a mandatory character, but even then a delinquent has to show that he has been prejudiced by its non-observance and consequently the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in the case of Managing Director, E.C.I.L. Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others, (1993)4 S.C.C. 727 , to the effect that an order passed in a disciplinary proceeding cannot ipso facto be quashed merely because a copy of the enquiry report has not been furnished to the delinquent officer, but he is obliged to show that by non-furnishing of such a report he has been prejudiced, would apply even to case where there is requirement of furnishing copy of enquiry report under the statutory provisions and/or service rules." 17. The discussion of their Lordships clearly show that non-furnishing of enquiry report to delingent will not ipso facto be and automatic ground to set aside the order of removal and reinstate him in the services. As rightly argued by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the Constitution Bench itself has gone into this question in detail and has clearly held that, in the absence of any second hearing, and the enquiry proceedings being held as one continuous process, the non-furnishing of enquiry report will not create any right to the delinquent to automatically get it into the position, prior to the enquiry proceedings. It is also clear that the enquiry from the stage of charge sheet till the stage of punishment is a continuous one and cannot be spilt into two. Mr.N. Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has also contended that the fact that non furnishing of enquiry report should be shown by the delinquent with factual details on the issue of prejudice. According to him, he should further plead and State in what way the prejudice has been caused to him due to the non compliance of furnishing enquiry report. As observed by their lordships in State of U.P. v. Harendra Harora and another, (2001)3 C.T.C. 176, burden is on the petitioner to show how prejudice is caused in respect of non supply of enquiry report. 18. As observed by their lordships in State of U.P. v. Harendra Harora and another, (2001)3 C.T.C. 176, burden is on the petitioner to show how prejudice is caused in respect of non supply of enquiry report. 18. It is the case of Mr.Jothi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that, not even an attempt has been made so as to focus any iota of prejudice in respect of the said non-furnishing of the report. It is relevant to note that against the order of removal made by the third respondent, the petitioner initially approached this Court in W.P.No.7508 of 1993 and the same was dismissed by giving liberty to him to agitate the matter before the appellate authority and thereafter to this Court, if need arise. After taking me through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of said W.P.No.7508 of 1993 and the memorandum submitted to the appellate authority i.e., the second respondent, learned counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the petitioner could venture anything about non furnishing of the enquiry report. In view of the contention raised, I have perused the affidavit filed in the earlier writ petition as well as the memorandum submitted to the appellate authority and I do not find any information focusing the prejudice in respect of non furnishing of report. I am satisfied that the petitioner has not submitted anything on the aspect of prejudice accordingly the error of non-supply of the enquiry report before passing the order of removal by the third respondent may not be a ground to set aside the impugned proceedings of the second respondent. I have already referred to the conduct of enquiry and found that he was given adequate opportunity to put forth his case. As a matter of fact, he has no grievance on the mode of enquiry or as against the enquiry officer. Accordingly, I am unable to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 19. Regarding the last contention that, punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct, as stated earlier, charges of unauthorised absence and private trade had been found proved. The petitioner himself accepted that he had frequently visited Bombay and whenever he had to visit Bombay he used to leave the place unauthorisedly to carry out his private business. 19. Regarding the last contention that, punishment is disproportionate to the misconduct, as stated earlier, charges of unauthorised absence and private trade had been found proved. The petitioner himself accepted that he had frequently visited Bombay and whenever he had to visit Bombay he used to leave the place unauthorisedly to carry out his private business. The third respondent - Managing Director who is competent to pass orders, after considering the charges, explanation, findings of the enquiry officer has concluded that, as all the three charges framed against him were clearly proved, it has become necessary to remove him from the services of the corporation as his further continuance in service would adversely affect the interest of the corporation. The appellate authority - second respondent, after considering the entire materials i.e., the contentions raised in the memorandum has concluded that there is well established evidence to show that he had personal dealings with the artisans and also concluded that his contention that he had no connection with the business of his wife and mother-in-law cannot be accepted. It has been further observed that the petitioner has looked after the business of his family by using his official position. Considering the overwhelming evidence, to safeguard the interest of the corporation, rejected the appeal. In such a circumstance, the punishment of removal cannot be said to be either excessive or unreasonable. On the other hand, the materials placed clearly support the punishment imposed on the petitioner. 20. In the light of the above acceptable materials, interference with the decision of the Departmental authorities by invoking jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution is very limited. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in a case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S.Patil, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 22. 20. In the light of the above acceptable materials, interference with the decision of the Departmental authorities by invoking jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution is very limited. In this regard, it is worthwhile to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in a case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S.Patil, A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 22. "16.....Interference with the decision of departmental authorities can be permitted, while exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution if such authority had held proceedings in violation of the principles of natural justice or in violation of statutory regulations prescribing the mode of such inquiry or if the decision of the authority is vitiated by considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case, or if the conclusion made by the authority, on the very face of it, is wholly arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could have arrived at such a conclusion, or grounds very similar to the above. But we cannot overlook that the departmental authority. (In this case the Disciplinary Committee of the High Court) is the sole judge of the facts, if the inquiry has been properly conducted. The settled legal position is that if there is some legal evidence on which the findings can be based, then adequacy or even reliability of that evidence is not a matter for canvassing before the High Court in a writ petition filed under Art.226 of the Constitution." I have already concluded that, based on the "enumerated misconduct" the petitioner was charge sheeted, he was given an opportunity to explain, he participated in the domestic enquiry, he was given adequate opportunity to put forth his claim and his defence was considered by the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority. In such a circumstance, as rightly observed by their Lordships, I am satisfied that there is no ground for interference in the order of the second respondent impugned in the writ petition. 21. Under these circumstances, I do not find any error or infirmity in the impugned order of the second respondent dated 15.2.1994. Consequently, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.