Judgment :- K. Raviraja Pandian, J. The correctness of the order dated 112. 2003 in W.P.No.2244 of 1997 dismissing the writ petition is canvassed in this appeal by the appellants. One C.N. Kannan filed writ petition challenging the award dated 12. 1996 made in I.D.No.576 of 1993 dismissing his claim and upholding the order dated 20.8.1990 dismissing him from service of the second respondent. During the pendency of the writ petition, the delinquent employee died and his legal representatives - the appellants were brought on record. 2. The material facts of the case are that one C.N. Kannan, since deceased, had joined the service of the second respondent in the year 1956 as nominal muster roll employee and gradually promoted as Lineman in the year 1980. On 1. 1989, he was issued a charge memo containing four charges: "Charge No.1: Thiru.Kannan Lineman has received cheques amounting to Rs.42,880/- as payment for work done by him in Pudupalayam, Naidumangalam and Polur Section as a contractor, when he was actually working as Linemen in Tamilnadu Electricity Board, and when he has not done any contract work and knowing fully well that this is a bogus payment he has accepted the payments. This is a misconduct as per 30(iv) of the Standing Orders in respect of workmen other than those engaged in clerical work. (applicable to him.). Charge No.2: Thiru.C.N.Kannan, Lineman has allowed his sons, Tvl.K.Sivaprakasam, K.Chandrasekaran and K.Veerapandian, his brother-in-law K.Karunakaran and Son-in-law Thiru. R. Selvam and the brother-in-law of his first son Tvl. K. Palani and K. Elumalai to work as contractors and to receive the payments to the tune of Rs.4.48 lakhs from Tamilnadu Electricity Board for the works not carried out by them knowing fully well that the payments are bogus and he has included and allowed his sons, brother-in-law and son-in-law to receive the payments. He has not intimated to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board that his close relatives are working as contractors, which acts constitute a misconduct under Sections 30(iv) and (xi) of Standing orders in respect of workman other than those engaged in clerical work. Charge No.3: Thiru. Kannan, Lineman has received the Measurement Books No.688 A from Central Office, on 212. 86, producing the bogus letter of indent prepared by Thiru. M. Subramanian. On that date C.N. Kannan was working as Lineman/Pudupalayam. But in the indent it was mentioned that Thiru. Charge No.3: Thiru. Kannan, Lineman has received the Measurement Books No.688 A from Central Office, on 212. 86, producing the bogus letter of indent prepared by Thiru. M. Subramanian. On that date C.N. Kannan was working as Lineman/Pudupalayam. But in the indent it was mentioned that Thiru. C.N. Kannan is working as Lineman/Polur. Thus Thiru Kannan colluded with Thiru. M. Subramanian, Assistant Engineer in preparing a bogus letter of indent for Measurement Book. This book has been utilised to prepare bogus hand receipts, in favour of Tvl. K. Selvam, V. Rajendran, V. Murugan who are all bogus contractors, for a value of Rs.2,981/-.This constitutes a misconduct as per standing order 30(IV) in respect of workman other than those engaged in clerical works. Charge No.4: Thiru Kannan, Lineman, Pudupalayam was allocated the work of strengthening the line work in Pudupalayam area on 286. But he has gone to Central Office on 212. 86 and received the Measurement Book No.688-A after giving acknowledgement to the Central Office as Lineman/C&I/Polur. This constitutes a misconduct under Standing Order 30(iv) in respect of workmen other than those engaged in clerical work." After due enquiry, by order dated 20.8.1990, he was dismissed from service for the proved charges. On failure of conciliation, the dismissed employee raised a claim before the Labour Court - the first respondent in I.D.No.576 of 1993. The Labour Court finding that the enquiry was not justifiable, set aside the enquiry, but allowed the parties to adduce evidence. On consideration of the evidence and materials, the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the deceased Kannan was guilty of the charges and declined to interfere with the order of dismissal from service. The deceased Kannan challenged the award of the Labour Court by filing writ petition, which went in vain. Hence the present appeal. 3. Mr. Ravichandran, learned counsel for the appellants contended that the punishment of dismissal deserves to be modified as one of compulsory retirement. The charge of receipt of a sum of Rs.42,880/- was not a bribe or illegal gratification, but as a contractor for the work done by the deceased Kannan and therefore the said Kannan could not have been punished for misconduct. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued for sustaining the order passed by the learned single Judge. .5. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent argued for sustaining the order passed by the learned single Judge. .5. The first charge leveled against the deceased employee is receipt of charges for illegal payment to the tune of Rs.42,880/-. The delinquent employee himself had admitted the receipt and encashment of the cheques through his Savings Bank Account in Indian Bank, Tiruvannamalai Branch. The explanation of the delinquent that he has handed over the amount to one Subramanian, the Assistant Engineer has been found against him by the Labour Court from the admitted conduct of the appellant. The Labour Court has also taken into account the report of the Vigilance Inspector, who was examined as M.W.1. The Vigilance Inspector was assigned with the task of inquiring into the fraudulent transaction on account of which several lakhs of rupees were syphoned off from the Electricity Board. M.W.1 has filed Ex.M.4, a detailed report of the enquiry conducted by him. He has been extensively cross examined by the delinquent. 6. With regard to other charges that the deceased has received amount in fictitious names of his family members as contractors was not disputed. The fictitious persons are none other than the delinquent officers sons, brother-in-law, and sons brother-in-law and thus his persons were fictitiously engaged as contractors with the full active connivance of the delinquent officer and payments have been obtained in their name and such payments have been encashed by opening Bank account. For the purpose of lending their names, they have given a sum of Rs.40/-per cheque, which has been elicited from them by the Vigilance Officer during the course of his enquiry. It is also accepted in evidence that the said persons were introduced to the Assistant Engineer by the delinquent officer only. Hence, the plea of ignorance of the activity of his family members has been rightly rejected by the Labour Court. .7. An additional factor of production of the Bank pass books of the family members of the delinquent officer has also falsified his explanation and pointed out the guilt against the delinquent. On the basis of the categorical evidence, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the charges have been established against the delinquent officer. .7. An additional factor of production of the Bank pass books of the family members of the delinquent officer has also falsified his explanation and pointed out the guilt against the delinquent. On the basis of the categorical evidence, the Labour Court has come to the conclusion that the charges have been established against the delinquent officer. The other contention that the Labour Court has not taken into consideration the past record of the delinquent has also been rightly rejected by the writ Court, in our view, considering the gravity of the proved charges. Further, the question of considering the past track record would arise only in the event of minor charges. When the charges leveled and proved against the delinquent are serious in nature, the proved charges themselves are sufficient for imposition of punishment. The past record would not militate the gravity of charges proved. Misconduct of the serious nature would definitely render the delinquent officer to visit with the punishment imposed. In the counter affidavit filed before the writ Court, it was stated that action was taken not only as against the delinquent officer but also as against the Deputy Financial Controller, Assistant Accounts Officer, Accountants and Assistants and punishments were awarded to them in terms of the severity of the delinquency. Further, the Labour Court has also recorded a finding that the deceased delinquent Kannan was guilty of charges considering that he was named as a person concerned in the entire scheme of the fraud which was committed against the Electricity Board. Though certain judgments have been stated before the Writ Court as regards the discrimination, which has been rightly rejected by the Writ Court, before us, no such endeavour has been made by the appellants. Though a contention has been raised on behalf of the appellants that the punishment of dismissal can be reduced as compulsory retirement that has not been substantiated by any material. Hence, we are not able to accept the said contention. 8. Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and the proved charges against the delinquent officer and the way in which he conducted himself in syphoning of the amount from the Electricity Board, we find no merit in this appeal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.