Judgment :- The petitioner seeks to challenge the orders of the respondents dated 2-11-2001 and 29-1-2002, in and by which, the petitioner was imposed with a punishment of demotion from E-3 Grade to E-2 Grade. 2. The petitioner was working as a Plant Engineer (Instrumentation), Fertilizer Plant in the first respondent Corporation. He applied for doing part time M.E.Course in Annamalai University. He made an application to the Chief Engineer, Fertilizers of the first respondent for a 'No Objection Certificate'. By proceedings dated 31-8-1990, the Chief Engineer, Fertilizers of the first respondent, addressed to the Registrar, Annamalai University with a copy marked to the petitioner, has issued No Objection Certificate for the admission of the petitioner to part time M.E.course (Power Systems). The said proceedings reads as under: "The Application received from Shri C.Doraiswamy, Plant Engineer/Instruments of this Company seeking admission to the Part Time M.E./Power Systems course in Annamalai University has already been forwarded. It is hereby certified that there is 'No Objection' to permit the above individual to attend the Part time M.E.Course classes. This is issued without any prejudice to the work in which he is engaged and without any commitment whatsoever on the part of the Company, Thanking You, Yours faithfully, Sd/- xxx Chief Engineer:Fertilizers" 3. According to the petitioner, he approached the very same Chief Engineer with his letter dated 13-9-1990 in which, it was represented that since the Part time classes were conducted only during the day time which would be for a period of two years, it would be difficult for the petitioner to get leave for the said period, instead he was advised to convert it to the regular course which would involve only three months time each for two semisters. According to the petitioner by getting it converted to the regular course, his work in NLC would not also suffer. The existence of the said communication dated 13-9-1990 was not admitted by the respondents. Nevertheless there was yet another communication issued by the Chief Engineer, Fertilizers, dated 19-9-1990 by way of a certificate which is to the following effect: "CERTIFICATE Date:19-9-1990 In respect of Shri C.Duraiaswamy, Plant Engineer (Instruments)/Fertifilizer, leave will be granted for attending classes for the Master of Engineering Course in "Power Systems Engineering" at Annamalai University. Sd/- xxx Chief Engineer:: Fertilizer" 4. Sd/- xxx Chief Engineer:: Fertilizer" 4. In the above stated circumstances, while the petitioner was pursuing his M.E.course in the regular discipline, he was issued with a charge memo dated 29-6-1991, in which, the following four charges were levelled against him. "(1) Shri C.Doraisamy submitted his application for admission in part-time M.E.in Power System Engineering Course conducted by Annamalai University, Annamalai Nagar. He got admission for attending part-time M.E.Course, as the application was forwarded through his Unit Head. Subsequently he applied for full time course in the M.E./Power System Engineering of the same University and got admission into it and converted his part-time studies into full time studies without the prior intimation to the Management or the knowledge of the Management. (2) He also misled the Chief Engineer/Fertilizer to believe that another certificate of assuring grant of leave was required by the University to enable him to attend certain practical classes and tests which could not be done during part-time course and obtained the certificate from the Chief Engineer/Fertilizer to that effect. (3) Shri C.Doraisamy also used the certificate for making the University authorities believe that his pursuing full time course was done with the knowledge of the NLC Management. (4) Further, it is seen from the records of attendance at the University Register as well as the attendance records at the time office and the site register at the plant that he was present on the following dates at both the places, viz., the University as well as the Plant. (1) 13-11-1990 (2) 20-11-1990 (3) 12-01-1991 (4) 28-01-1991 (5) 12-02-1991 (6) 19-02-1991 (7) 18-03-1991 Shri C.Doraisamy has thus punched in the cards at the Time Office and authorisedly absented himself from work on the days, besides managed to mark his attendance at the office." 5. It was alleged that the said charges if proved would constitute misconduct falling under Clauses (i), (iv), (viii), (x), (xvii) of Rule 26 as well as Rule 3 of NLC Employees (Conduct) Rules. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 20-7-1991 denying the charges. In the said explanation, the petitioner specifically referred to the letter dated 13-9-1990, as well as, the certificate issued by the Chief Engineer dated 19-9-1990. Thereafter, an enquiry was ordered to be held, in which the petitioner fully participated. In support of the charges, five witnesses were examined by the respondents. In the said explanation, the petitioner specifically referred to the letter dated 13-9-1990, as well as, the certificate issued by the Chief Engineer dated 19-9-1990. Thereafter, an enquiry was ordered to be held, in which the petitioner fully participated. In support of the charges, five witnesses were examined by the respondents. Except PW.5, the other witnesses were not cross-examined by the petitioner. 6. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dated 22-8-1991 holding that Charge No.1 falling under Clauses 26(i) and (x) stood proved, while in respect of Charge No.2 the misconduct falling under Clause 26(iv) was held to be proved. As far as Charge No.3 was concerned, it was held that the misconduct falling under Clause 26(i) stood proved. As regards the allegation of unauthorised absence, the Enquiry Officer in his findings reported to the effect that the said charge was not proved for certain stated reasons. Nevertheless, it was observed that the conduct of the petitioner was thereafter not conducive to the credit and prestige of the institution. The petitioner was thereafter imposed with a punishment of demotion from E-3 Grade to E-2 Grade by an order dated 04/09-2-1994. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition in this Court in W.P.No.2917 of 1994 which was ultimately allowed on 13-6-2001 on the ground that before inflicting the punishment, the petitioner was not furnished with the copy of the Enquiry Officer's report and thereby he was denied reasonable opportunity. It was in those circumstances, the present orders of punishment came to be imposed after complying with the directions of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition. 7. It was in those circumstances, the present orders of punishment came to be imposed after complying with the directions of this Court in the earlier Writ Petition. 7. Assailing the orders impugned in this Writ Petition, Mr.V.K.Muthusami, learned Senior counsel would contend that in the enquiry, the petitioner was not given due opportunity, inasmuch as, when he wanted time to cross-examine PWs 1, 2 and 4, on the next day, such a reasonable request was rejected by the Enquiry Officer; that even going by the findings of the Enquiry Officer, there was noting to suggest that the petitioner committed a willful insubordination or breach of any rules or regulations inasmuch as he pursued his M.E.Course only after getting necessary permission from the Chief Engineer, Fertilizers and if as per the Rules, such promotion for doing the course on a regular basis was to be obtained from a different official, such a course should have been adopted only by the Chief Engineer and the petitioner should not be faulted for any lapse committed by his Unit Head. It was further contended that when the petitioner preferred the appeal against the initial order of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority failed to apply its mind to the various grounds raised on behalf of the petitioner and therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority being a non-speaking order, the orders are liable to be set aside. Lastly, it was contended that for the alleged acts said to have been proved against the petitioner, the punishment of demotion from E-3 Grade to E-2 Grade was highly disproportionate and only a lessor punishment was called for. 8. As against the above said submissions, Mr.N.A.K.Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, first and foremost contended that while the petitioner was granted permission to pursue his M.E.Course on part time basis, he ought not have converted the same into a regular one without obtaining the proper permission from the proper authority as per the existing rules of the Corporation. The learned counsel would submit that going by the letter dated 31-8-1990 and 19-9-1990 of the Chief Engineer, it cannot be held that the petitioner was granted permission by the respondent Corporation to undergo regular course of Master of Engineering in Annamalai University. The learned counsel would submit that going by the letter dated 31-8-1990 and 19-9-1990 of the Chief Engineer, it cannot be held that the petitioner was granted permission by the respondent Corporation to undergo regular course of Master of Engineering in Annamalai University. As far as the letter dated 13-9-1990, the learned counsel contended that the said letter was never submitted to the respondent Corporation and the existence of the said communication was highly doubtful and the petitioner failed to establish that the said communication was submitted to the Corporation or to the Chief Engineer, Fertilizers. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner was extended every opportunity in the Enquiry to cross examine the witnesses examined in support of the charges and a perusal of the enquiry proceedings would show that while initially the petitioner was prepared to cross-examine the witnesses, for reasons best known to him, he changed his mind and sought for time, which was rightly rejected by the Enquiry Officer as that would only unnecessarily prolong the proceedings. As far as the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the learned counsel pointed out that when in the charge sheet, the relevant rules based on which, the different charges came to be laid and the reference to the same was made by the Enquiry Officer in his findings, the same would sufficiently establish that the misconduct falling under the concerned rules stood proved as held by the Enquiry Officer. 9. On the above said basis, it was contended that when the specific rules of the Corporation do not provide for doing PG course in Engineering as a regular course as that would affect the work of the corporation, the conduct of the petitioner in initially getting permission for doing the course on part time basis and later converting the same to a regular one without the knowledge of the Corporation by itself was sufficient to impose the punishment as has been done under the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. The learned counsel therefore submitted that no interference is called for to the orders impugned in the Writ Petition. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and on a perusal of the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer, I am convinced that the petitioner was given every opportunity in the enquiry to put forth his stand. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and considering the various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner and on a perusal of the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer, I am convinced that the petitioner was given every opportunity in the enquiry to put forth his stand. As rightly pointed out by Mr.N.A.K.Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the crux of the charges levelled against the petitioner centered around the proceedings of the Chief Engineer, Fertilizers dated 31-8-1990 and his certificate dated 19-9-1990. Therefore, when the said Chief Engineer was examined as PW1 on the side of the respondents, his evidence was very categoric in relation to the above referred to documents. In such a situation, after the conclusion of his chief examination, when the Enquiry Officer asked the Delinquent Officer as to his reaction, he wanted to cross-examine the said witnesses, to which, the witness was also fully prepared. When the Enquiry Officer permitted the Delinquent Officer to proceed with his cross-examination, the petitioner without any rhyme or reason, immediately placed a request for adjourning the enquiry to the next date for the purpose of cross-examination. In this context, it is very relevant to take note of the status and qualification of the petitioner who is a fully qualified Techinical Officer in the respondent Corporation. Further, he had also had the assistance of yet another officer and on a perusal of the cross-examination done by the said person who assisted the petitioner in regard to the evidence of PW.5, it is quite intriguing that the said person was so competent enough who could have very easily cross-examined PW1, whose evidence was very limited in scope and extent. In such circumstances, I am unable to accept the stand of the petitioner that he was denied a reasonable opportunity by not permitting him to cross-examine the Pws.1, 2 and 4 to the next day. In any event, as far as the evidence of PW1 is concerned which is in tune with the letter issued by him on 31-8-1990, as well as, the certificate dated 19-9-1990, I am afraid that there is any scope for the Enquiry Officer to come to a different conclusion than what has been found in his findings dated 22-8-1991. In any event, as far as the evidence of PW1 is concerned which is in tune with the letter issued by him on 31-8-1990, as well as, the certificate dated 19-9-1990, I am afraid that there is any scope for the Enquiry Officer to come to a different conclusion than what has been found in his findings dated 22-8-1991. De-hors any other material in the enquiry and going by the evidence of PW1 read along with the letters dated 31-8-1990 and the certificate dated 19-9-1990, it is crystal clear that the petitioner was only granted permission to undergo a part time M.E.course in Annamalai University and there was no other acceptable material to hold that such a permission was later converted to the effect that he could pursue a regular PG Course in Engineering. 11. As far as his letter dated 13-9-1990, though the stand of the respondents that the said letter came to be interposed at a later point of time, such an extreme sand cannot be accepted, inasmuch as at the earliest point of time in the explanation to the charge memo, the petitioner made a reference to the said letter as early as on 20-7-1991. But the fact remains that the petitioner failed to prove to the satisfaction of the Enquiry Officer or this Court that the said communication was really submitted to the Corporation on the date referred to in the said communication. In any event, that letter by itself will not go to prove that the petitioner had the approval of the respondent Corporation to convert the permission granted to him to convert the part time M.E.course into a regular discipline. In such circumstances, the charges as held proved as against the petitioner by the Enquiry Officer and as accepted by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be found fault with. Equally, the acceptance of the same by the Appellate Authority, for the reasons stated in the order dated 29-1-2001 cannot also be equally faulted. 12. When it comes to the question of punishment, I find that the submission of Mr.V.K.Muthuswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had to be appreciated. It is not the case of the petitioner that he pursued the part-time course without the permission of the Corporation. 12. When it comes to the question of punishment, I find that the submission of Mr.V.K.Muthuswamy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner had to be appreciated. It is not the case of the petitioner that he pursued the part-time course without the permission of the Corporation. Probably in his anxiety to shorten the duration of the course and thereby his pursuance of PG Course should not affect his regular work in the respondent Corporation, he thought it fit to get it converted from part time course to the regular discipline. According to the petitioner, by getting it converted into the regular discipline, the duration of the course got shortened from two years to one and half years. It is not seriously disputed that by getting the course converted from part time to regular discipline, the work of the respondent Corporation was seriously put to prejudice. Though there was a specific charge alleged against the petitioner that he absented himself for a considerable number of days, even according to the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the said charge was not conclusively proved. As stated earlier, in his own anxiety, the petitioner with good intention appeared to have converted the part time course into a regular discipline. In fact, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has contributed to a very large extent in the course of performance of his duties and it was for the benefit of the Corporation and in such circumstances, for having improved his educational qualifications which would also be beneficial to the Corporation, the petitioner should not be imposed with a severe punishment. The past record of the petitioner was not only good but also appreciable, inasmuch as it is stated that the petitioner has also done some innovative work in the development of 'Humic Acid' (an organic manure) which can also be taken into consideration in the award of punishment. 13. As far as the punishments are concerned, the same are provided under Rule 6 of the Employees Conduct Rules. Such punishments are ranging from Warning/censure to withholding increments with or without cumulative effect, suspension without pay for a period not exceeding four days apart from other major punishments. 13. As far as the punishments are concerned, the same are provided under Rule 6 of the Employees Conduct Rules. Such punishments are ranging from Warning/censure to withholding increments with or without cumulative effect, suspension without pay for a period not exceeding four days apart from other major punishments. In this context, the learned Senior counsel also brought to my notice the Judgment of His Lordship Mr.Justice K.P.Sivasubramaniam reported in 2003(1) CTC 153 (M.MALARVIZHI versus GANDHIGRAM INSTITUTE OF RURAL HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE TRUST, REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR, AMBADURAI R.S. GANDHIGRAM), as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 1151 (U.P.STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND OTHERS versus MAHESH KUMAR MISRA AND OTHERS), wherein a reference has been made to an earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1995(6) SCC 749 (B.C.CHATURVEDI versus UNION OF INDIA), which is to the following effect:- "A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/ appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." 14. Therefore, when the alleged misconduct found proved against the petitioner, in my opinion, is not so very grave enough to warrant a severe punishment, though it does call for a punishment, I feel that either warning or censure or at the maximum withholding of an increment without cumulative effect would have met the ends of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, going by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I feel that in the case on hand, it would be appropriate if such a course is also left with the employer themselves instead of this Court attempting to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner. However, going by the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, I feel that in the case on hand, it would be appropriate if such a course is also left with the employer themselves instead of this Court attempting to interfere with the punishment imposed on the petitioner. With that view, while setting aside the orders impugned in the Writ Petition, the punishment aspect is left to the respondent Corporation for re-determination in the lines suggested above by passing appropriate order afresh. In this context, it is also relevant to keep in mind that the petitioner has got service only up to 31-8-2004. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations. The respondent Corporation can pass fresh orders within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order. No costs.