Judgment :- Writ petition praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records from the respondent relating to the order in memo No.6E/CEDC/North/Adm.I/A4/D.90/2002 dated 19.4.2002 and to quash the same. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, what comes to be known is that the order impugned in this writ petition is the second show cause notice issued, seeking explanation of the petitioner for his delinquencies of misappropriation of the board's money of Rs.71,630/- collected from various consumers, tampering the date of collection , misconduct, failing to watch the remittance challans and negligent in official work etc. 3.It further comes to be seen that the enquiry proceeding had been conducted on a charge-memo issued to the petitioner and his reply received and the enquiry officer had also holding enquiry on 11.2.2002 by his findings dated 2.4.2002 had concluded that the charges framed against the petitioner have been proved. Enclosing the copy of enquiry officer's finding, the second show cause notice has been issued seeking the explanation of the petitioner as to why he should not be removed from the service of the Board and it is this notice, the petitioner has come forward to challenge in the above writ petition seeking the reliefs extracted supra. 4.During the time that the above matter was taken up for admission, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would rely on the earlier orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this court respectively in (i)J.VICTOR VIS. GENERAL, RANI MANGAMMAL TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND (1998 (2) L.L.N.907 (II)L.MANICKAVASAGAM VS. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD (represented by Chief Engineer(Distribution),Madurai) (1998 (2) L.L.N.923 and yet another order passed by another learned Single Judge of this court in Writ Petition No.4549 of 2000 dated 26.4.2000. 5.In the order first cited above, the writ petition is concerned with the disciplinary proceedings, wherein the learned Judge has assessed the scope of employees' right holding that on receipt of the report from the enquiry officer before taking any decision, a duty is cast on the respondent-management to send the entire copy of the report including the enquiry proceedings to the delinquent employee. 6. 6. In the second order cited above, in a case where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of certain charges, which was held by the enquiry officer as not proved, the learned Judge has held that `before coming to such conclusion, the disciplinary authority should have given an opportunity to the petitioner and in the absence of such opportunity, the notice disagreeing with the enquiry officer's finding with respect to certain charges cannot be sustained and has to be set aside'. The learned Judge has further held that `report of enquiry officer should be served on the delinquent before proposing the punishment to be imposed and when admittedly such a report was served on the delinquent only along with main show cause notice, it is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of principles of natural justice'. 7. In the third order cited above also it is held that `whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings'. 8. So far as the case in hand is concerned, particularly pertaining to the impugned show cause notice, there is no question of disagreement of the disciplinary authority with the enquiry officer pertaining to any article of charges. The disciplinary authority in perfect agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer and accepting the same and further taking into consideration the gravity of the proved charges, it arrived at the provisional conclusion of removing the petitioner from the service of the Board as a measure of punishment. It is pertinent to know that the copy of the enquiry officer's findings had already been enclosed for proper consideration of the petitioner to submit his explanation, further giving him a time of 15 days to show cause. 9. It is pertinent to know that the copy of the enquiry officer's findings had already been enclosed for proper consideration of the petitioner to submit his explanation, further giving him a time of 15 days to show cause. 9. In the above scenario, it is relevant to consider the proposition held by the learned Single Judge of this court in the second order cited above holding that the report of the enquiry officer should be served on the delinquent before proposing the punishment to be imposed and if the report is served on the delinquent along with the show cause notice, it is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of principles of natural justice. 10. With great respect to the learned Brother Judge, this court would like to express its disagreement with this proposition propounded , since it is not desirable nor necessary nor would it serve any useful purpose, for the disciplinary authority to serve on the delinquent the report of the enquiry officer where the proposed punishment is to be inflicted, when sufficient and reasonable time and opportunity is afforded by the disciplinary authority also enclosing the enquiry report for a perusal, this opportunity proposed to be given prior to arriving at the provisional conclusion, serving only the copy of the enquiry report with no explanation or anything of that sort being offered, the delinquent without knowing the mind-set of the disciplinary authority on the enquiry report, the opportunity additionally sought to be given cannot serve any useful purpose and will only be a time consuming exercise and therefore this court is of the view that one more opportunity prior to the disciplinary authority arriving at the provisional conclusion, is neither required nor necessary, since the delinquent is not at all prejudiced in any manner without such a luxurious and non productive opportunity. 11. 11. For all the above discussions held, this court in consideration of the opportunity afforded in the second show cause notice with a clear cut time of 15 days to the delinquent, enclosing the enquiry report and seeking to show cause as to why the provisional conclusion to remove him from out of service should not be complied with is perfectly in order and no error apparent on the face of the notice impugned is seen nor any legal infirmity or inconsistency has crept into, much less without sufficient or reasonable opportunity for the petitioner and hence the interference of this court sought to be made is neither necessary nor warranted in the circumstances of the case. In result, the above writ petition does not merit acceptance and deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. Consequently, WP.Mp.Nos.30774 and 30775 of 2002 are also dismissed.