AR. LAKSHMANA, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Smt. S. V. Indira, learned counsel appearing for the appellant; learned Government Pleader for Cooperation appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent-Government and Sri S. Ranga Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents 2 and 4. ( 2 ) THIS Writ Appeal has been filed against the order dated 27-12-1997 passed by a learned single Judge of this court dismissing W. P. No. 20148 of 1994 filed by the appellant herein. The appellant filed the Writ Petition for issue of a Writ of Mandamus seeking to declare the action of the 4th respondent-Board of Directors of A. P. State Seeds Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad in passing the minutes at its 95th meeting held on 11-11-1994 deciding to terminate the services of the appellant. ( 3 ) WE have perused the entire pleadings and the records and also the order passed by the learned single Judge. In this case certain serious charges were framed against the appellant, who was working as the General Manager, (Marketing) in the 2nd respondent-Corporation. In the year 1987 the Corporation supplied hybrid seeds to some private dealers in Bihar State. The dealers paid some amount and for the balance the appellant received a blank cheque and he himself filled up the amount in figures and words in his own hand writing and put the figure rs. 1,15,500-00 and sent the same to the Accounts Section on 13-11-1987. The cashier, who received the cheque on 13-11-1987, returned the cheque to the appellant because the name of the branch of the bank was not mentioned on the cheque. The appellant himself filled the name of the branch of the bank as gulab Bagh, 824 Purnea, Bihar and gave it to the cashier. The cheque was presented on 1-12-1987 at the Corporation s bank, viz. , State Bank of India, Red Hills Branch but it was returned on 19-12-1987 as the same was not honoured. It is the case of the respondents that because of the appellant s action the Corporation was not able to receive the amount due from the private purchasers of the seed from Bihar State. According to the Corporation, the appellant ought to have demanded a demand draft for the amount due to the Corporation. The appellant did not also bring any of these facts to the notice of the Managing Director of the Corporation. According to the Corporation, the appellant ought to have demanded a demand draft for the amount due to the Corporation. The appellant did not also bring any of these facts to the notice of the Managing Director of the Corporation. On receipt of certain complaints from the dealers about the quality of the seeds supplied, the appellant submitted a note to the Managing Director on 10-12-1987 stating that the seed supplied was found substandard and that the seed had to be taken back, condemned and sold as substandard seed in the local market. In the same note the appellant also sought permission to travel by Air as it was very cold in West Bengal and Bihar States and he could not travel by train which takes about two days for the journey. The then Managing Director permitted the appellant to go by Air to attend the work connected with Sales Tax Assessment and to investigate into the complaints received on the quality of the seeds supplied. The Managing Director sought for clarification as to why substandard seed was supplied and who was responsible for the same. The appellant submitted another note to the then Managing Director on 11-12-1987 stating that as the party is complaining on the quality of the seed supplied, they would not pay the balance of Rs. 1,15,272-79 and would pay only Rs. 4,772-79 since the value of the stock under complaint was Rs. 1,10,500-00. Thus, according to the Corporation, the appellant concealed the fact about the blank cheque received by him and he did not follow the instructions issued by the Managing Director for supplying the seed outside the State. Further, even though permission was given on 10-12-1987 by the then Managing Director to proceed to Bihar, the appellant did not go immediately. Finally the appellant went to Bihar and submitted a report that M/s. Tirupathi Agro Marketing Private Limited would remit the amount of Rs. 1,15,500-00 on 6-1-1988, which is quite contrary to his earlier reports and he did not explain as to why the said firm could agree for the payment of Rs. 1,15,000-00 especially when he said in his earlier note dated 10-12-1987 that the firm would pay only Rs. 4772-79 against Rs. 1,15,272-79. On the basis of this allegation, the then Managing Director was appointed by the Board as the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry. 1,15,000-00 especially when he said in his earlier note dated 10-12-1987 that the firm would pay only Rs. 4772-79 against Rs. 1,15,272-79. On the basis of this allegation, the then Managing Director was appointed by the Board as the Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry. As the appellant has taken an objection for the Managing Director being the Enquiry Officer, the Board appointed the 3rd respondent as the Enquiry Officer by its proceedings dated 2-5-1988. The Enquiry Officer issued a charge memo dated 27-6-1988 to which the appellant submitted his explanation. Thereupon the Enquiry Officer issued a questionnaire to the appellant and the appellant submitted his reply. The Enquiry Officer issued notice to the appellant. However, the appellant did not cooperate with he Enquiry Officer in conducting the enquiry and thereupon the Enquiry Officer finally submitted his report holding that the appellant is guilty of all the charges levelled against him. At that stage the appellant submitted his resignation letter in view of the findings contained in the Enquiry Officer s report but the Board did not accept the resignation of the appellant on the ground that there was dearth of hands. Later the Board issued a show cause notice dated 1-7-1994 to the appellant calling upon him to submit his explanation as to why he should not be removed from service. In the said show cause notice the charges, explanation of the petitioner and the findings of the Enquiry Officer were specifically mentioned. The appellant submitted his explanation to the show cause notice. The Board considered the entire material on record and passed the impugned order dated 11-11-1994 terminating the appellant s services with immediate effect. Questioning the said order passed by the Board terminating his services, the appellant has filed the Writ Petition. We have perused the enquiry report and also the other connected records pertaining to the disciplinary proceedings. The Enquiry Officer framed charges against the appellant and issued the questionnaire and also examined the witnesses. The appellant without participating in the enquiry raised a grievance that the enquiry conducted is not proper and filed the Writ Petition questioning the decision taken by the Board in terminating his services. The Enquiry Officer framed charges against the appellant and issued the questionnaire and also examined the witnesses. The appellant without participating in the enquiry raised a grievance that the enquiry conducted is not proper and filed the Writ Petition questioning the decision taken by the Board in terminating his services. ( 4 ) IT has come in the evidence that the appellant himself filled up the blanks in the cheque issued by the private purchaser and that the same was dishonoured by the bank because of the non-mention of the name of the branch of the bank. The appellant himself filled up the branch s name. It is also a matter of evidence that the appellant himself went to Bihar and the party paid the amount due to the Corporation by way of draft for Rs. 1,00,700-00. This itself shows that the appellant originally submitted a false note to the then Managing Director that the party was complaining about the quality of the seed and that he would not pay the amount of Rs. 1,15,272-79. A perusal of the record would go to show that the Enquiry Officer provided ample opportunity to the appellant and the Corporation also issued a second show cause notice to the appellant mentioning the charges, the explanation submitted by him and the findings in the Enquiry Officer s report before removing the appellant from service. The appellant also submitted his explanation to the second show cause notice. The Board of Directors considered the entire material on record and came to the conclusion that it is not in the interests of the Corporation to retain the appellant in service and accordingly removed him from service. ( 5 ) SMT. S. V. Indira, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the enquiry was not conducted properly and at least now the appellant may be permitted to prefer departmental appeal to the appellate authority of the Corporation. She also submitted that the punishment imposed on the appellant is shockingly disproportionate and that the learned single Judge has failed to consider the contention of the appellant s counsel that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate In our opinion, none of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant merits acceptance. She also submitted that the punishment imposed on the appellant is shockingly disproportionate and that the learned single Judge has failed to consider the contention of the appellant s counsel that the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate In our opinion, none of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant merits acceptance. A perusal of the entire record would go to show that the respondents have conducted the enquiry properly and sufficient and ample opportunity was given to the appellant and that the appellant alone is at fault in not availing the opportunities provided to him. Therefore, there is no point in now alleging that the enquiry conducted is not proper. Insofar as the punishment is concerned, we are of the opinion that the punishment imposed is not on the high side nor excessive, as alleged. The charges framed against the appellant are serious in nature. The appellant being the General Manager (Marketing) of the Corporation was involved in financial irregularities. In view of the financial irregularities alleged against the petitioner and proved at the enquiry, we are of the opinion that the Board is at liberty to impose upon him the penalty. In our view, the order passed by the respondents terminating the services of the appellant is perfectly in order and no infirmity could be attributed to the departmental enquiry on the ground that an outsider was appointed as Enquiry Officer unless serious prejudice is shown to have been caused to the appellant on account of appointment of an outsider as an Enquiry Officer. Nothing has been brought to our knowledge as to whether any prejudice was caused to the appellant on account of conducting of the enquiry by the outsider. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that no opportunity of hearing was given is also not tenable. The Board also considered the effect of the resignation letter given by the appellant and took a decision not to accept the same and asked the appellant to continue in service for some time. We do not find any illegality or irregularity on the part of the Enquiry Officer in conducting the domestic enquiry. Principles of natural justice do not appear to have been violated in this case. We do not find any illegality or irregularity on the part of the Enquiry Officer in conducting the domestic enquiry. Principles of natural justice do not appear to have been violated in this case. It is settled law that the court is not competent to go into the nature of punishment and it is for the disciplinary authority to consider what would be the nature of punishment to be imposed on the erring employee based upon the proved misconduct. The order of removal from service passed in the instant case does not cast a stigma on the appellant to seek employment elsewhere. Considering the gravity of the offence alleged and proved against the appellant, the punishment imposed on the appellant is just and proper and does not call for interference in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.