Judgment :- In W.P.No:8404 of 1999, the writ petitioner Mr.V.Gnanasekaran has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from holding enquiry against the petitioner by outside agency contrary to the Government Letter dated 26.8.1996 made in Letter No.1160 BPE/1995-1, issued by the first respondent herein. 2. In W.P.No:8409 of 1999, the petitioner S.Mohan has prayed for the issue of a writ of mandamus forbearing the respondents from holding enquiry against the petitioner by outside agency contrary to the Government Letter dated 26.8.1996 made in Letter No.1160 BPE/1995-1, issued by the first respondent herein. 3. Heard Mr. S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Mrs.D.Malarvizhi, Government Advocate appearing for the first respondent and Mr.K.V.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Corporation. With the consent of counsel on either side, both the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal. 4. In both the writ petitions the petitioners contend that the second respondent-employer has no authority to appoint an outsider as an enquiry officer in respect of charges framed against the respective petitioners by the second respondent employer. The second respondent-employer after framing the charges and after receipt of reply appointed S.V.Kanakarajan, Deputy Commissioner of Labour (retired) as the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges framed against the writ petitioners. Challenging the said appointment of Mr.S.V.Kanakarajan, Deputy Commencement of Labour (Retd)., as the enquiry officer. After raising objections, the petitioner in each of the writ petition has sought for a mandamus forbearing the second respondent-Corporation from appointing an outsider as an enquiry officer. 5. Mr.S.Senthilnathan, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners pointed out that there is a Government instruction, which directs that only the employees of the second respondent-Corporation above could be appointed as enquiry officer. The said instruction, namely G.O.(D) No.750, Labour and employment dated 9th August, 1994, is heavily relied upon by the counsel for petitioner. A perusal of the instruction issued by the State Government would show that the State Government has issued instructions that Public Sector Undertakings/Boards should not appoint any outside agency as an enquiry officer in the disciplinary cases. The State also has directed the second respondent-Poompuhar Shipping Corporation to make necessary provision in the Rules on the said lines if similar provisions are not already in existence in the service rules of the Undertaking. 6. The State also has directed the second respondent-Poompuhar Shipping Corporation to make necessary provision in the Rules on the said lines if similar provisions are not already in existence in the service rules of the Undertaking. 6. Per contra, Mr.K.V.Subramani, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Corporation placed a copy of the Service Rules of the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation as approved by the State Government in G.O.(D) No.750, Labour and employment dated 9th August, 1994. The said Service Rules of the Poompuhar Shipping Corporation has been notified under Section 13.B of the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946. Chapter IV of the Rules provides for conduct, discipline and Appeal. Rule 4.6 defines "misconduct". Rule 4.3 provides for penalties. Rule 4.4 provides for suspension. Rule 4.3.2 prescribes the procedure for imposing punishment. A perusal of the Rule 4.3.2 would show that there is no bar or prohibition for appointing a third party or an outsider as an enquiry officer. 7. According to Mr.K.V.S.Subramanian, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-Corporation, in the absence of any prohibition in the Rules it is well open to the second respondent to appoint a third party as an enquriy officer. The Rule 4.3.2 reads thus:- "4.3.2. In every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service under the Corporation any of the penalties specified in items (6)(7) and (8) in Rule 4.3. the grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which shall be communicated to the person charged, together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required within a reasonable time, to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires an oral enquiry. The enquiry shall be held if such an enquriy is desired by a person charged or is directed by the authority concerned. At that enquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross examine the witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. At that enquiry oral evidence shall be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross examine the witnesses called, as he may wish, provided that the officer conducting the enquiry may, for special and sufficient reason to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and statement of the findings and the grounds thereof. Provided that in case of a person appointed to a post by transfer from any other class or service the Corporation may at any time before the appointment of the said person as a full member to the said post, revert him to such class or service either or ant of vacancy or in the event of his becoming surplus to requirements or if the Corporation is satisfied that he has not got the necessary aptitude for work in the said post, without observing the formalities prescribed in this sub rule." 8. The legal position in this respect is settled by the pronouncements of the Apex Court as well as this court. In Babu Vs. Joint Zonal Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Southern Zone, Bank of India, reported in ( 1999 (III) CTC 285 ) this court held thus:- "26. In Central Bank of India v. C.Bernard, 1991 (1) SCC 319 , their Lordships of the Apex Court had occasion to consider the question whether the departmental enquiry entrusted to and conducted by a Bank official stands vitiated if the said official proceeds with the enquiry and adjudicate the same after his superannuation during the pendency of the enquiry? The Apex Court held that a third party official can validly be appointed as the enquiry officer, but the third party cannot validly be constituted as the disciplinary authority. In other words what has been held is that an enquiry officer need not be an officer of the Bank namely the employer and even a third party can be appointed as the enquiry officer to enquire into the conduct of an employee, but a non official cannot act as a disciplinary authority and pass the order of punishment against the delinquent employee." 9. In Indian Telephone Industries Vs. Devi Shankar Shukla, reported in (1997) II SCC 193, the Apex Court held thus:- "2. In Indian Telephone Industries Vs. Devi Shankar Shukla, reported in (1997) II SCC 193, the Apex Court held thus:- "2. The only question for decision is whether the appointment of a person who was not in the employment, i.e., an outsider as the Enquiry Officer is contrary to the requirement of Standing Order 16(2)(b) so as to vitiate the domestic inquiry. The learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have both answered this question in the affirmative. Hence, this appeal by special leave. 3. Standing Order 16(2)(b) is as under: "16. Procedure for Punishment: (1) * * * (2) For major punishments listed in para 15.2 before disciplinary action amounting to postponement of annual increment for more than three months or reduction in the grade or reversion or demotion to a lower grade or dismissal is taken, action on the following lines will be taken by the Manager: (a) * * * (b) On receipt of the explanation of the employee or on expiry of the time-limit whichever is earlier or under special circumstances at the time of issuing the charge-sheet, the Manager shall appoint an Enquiry Officer or constitute an Enquiry Committee consisting of one or more than one person, other than from the Security Department..." 4. It is clear from the above provision in the Standing Order that the requirement is to appoint an Enquiry Officer who is not from the Security Department. There is no other prohibition about choice of the person to be appointed Enquiry Officer in the above provision. The reason for excluding a person belonging to the Security Department is obvious. Such a person who is in the Security Department may have some interest in the successful conclusion of the domestic inquiry against the delinquent employee. His exclusion, therefore, is to eliminate the likelihood of any bias. Such a provision cannot be construed to mean that a person who is not even an employee in any other department and being an outsider having no interest in the outcome of the domestic inquiry is also to be excluded. The view taken by the High Court is, therefore, untenable." 10. In MGMT.Thanjavur Textile Mills Vs. B.Purushotham reported in AIR 1999 SC 1290 , the Apex Court held thus:- "14. The view taken by the High Court is, therefore, untenable." 10. In MGMT.Thanjavur Textile Mills Vs. B.Purushotham reported in AIR 1999 SC 1290 , the Apex Court held thus:- "14. Once it was conceded in the High Court by the learned senior counsel who appeared for the workmen that an advocate could be appointed as an enquiry officer, the advocate would, in our opinion, have all the normal powers of an enquiry officer including the power to give findings as to misconduct of the employees. We are unable to make a distinction between the powers of an enquiry officer who is an employee of the Company and an outsider. If the Manager was entitled to appoint an enquiry officer in either case the appointee, in his capacity as an enquiry officer, would have the same powers. We accordingly hold that the advocate in this case could have given findings as to misconduct and the Division Bench of the High Court was wrong in thinking that the advocate, being an outsider would not have the power to give findings as to misconduct of the employees." 11. In W.P.No: 20547 of 2002, National College, Trichirappalli Vs. Joint Director of Collegiate Education, dated 1.11.2002, this court considered the earlier pronouncements of this court as well as that of the Apex Court and held thus:- "15. In Central Bank of India Vs. C.Bernard, reported in 1991 (1) SCC 319 , the Apex Court held that a disciplinary authority cannot be a non official, but an enquiry officer can be a non official. In that case, the Apex Court held that there is no illegality or bar for a third party non official being appointed as domestic enquiry officer. 16. In other words, in the statutory provision of the Tamil Nadu Private College Regulation Act, the Rules and the Form of Agreement entered, there is no bar, and in the absence of any bar, or in the absence of any provision specifying that the domestic enquiry, if any, shall be conducted only by a Member of the Committee or a staff member of the college, there can be no bar for the petitioner college in appointing an outsider, in this case a Member of the Bar to be the domestic enquiry officer. On the enquiry officer submitting a report, it is for the college committee to proceed further after furnishing enquiry Report calling for objections of the delinquent officials to state his objections and thereafter pass such orders as it deems fit." 12. When the Rules framed under the Standing Orders are in force, instructions, if any, directing the second respondent to introduce a rule which is at the stage of proposal only and so far the service rules have not been amended. Therefore as of today, there is no prohibition or bar for the second respondent appointing an outsider as an enquiry officer. The sole contention raised in this respect in both the writ petitions miserably fails. Both the writ petitions are dismissed. Consequently, connected WMPs are also dismissed. No costs.