Judgment :- 1. Petitioner seeks Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the impugned order dated 12. 2005 passed by the 2nd Respondent and direct the 2nd Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner to his original post of Mess Manager with all back wages and benefits from the date of his suspension dated 16. 2001 till the death of reinstatement. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition are as follows:- (i) Petitioner was appointed as Senior Supervisor on 011. 1972 by Warden, Tapti Hostel. Subsequently, he was promoted as Hostel Manager on 05. 1973. Hostel Manager subsequently termed as Mess Manager. Petitioner is responsible for placing of orders, receiving of supplies from the suppliers, checking of the quality and quantity of price, verification of materials received and making stock entry thereof in the stock ledger. (ii) In the accounts submitted by the Petitioner for the month of November 2000, certain discrepancies were noticed. Petitioner was served with notice dated 11. 2001 calling for his explanations. Petitioner sent his reply. Petitioner was served with Charge Memo dated 14. 2001 alleging that he claimed two payment vouchers on 110. 2000 for the amount of Rs.1208/- and Rs.758/-respectively and explanation was called for. Petitioner has sent his reply explaining the things happened on the alleged discrepancy and also procedure to be followed for making payment to the suppliers. Enquiry Committee headed by Prof. V.G.Idichandy, was appointed. Petitioner was placed under suspension from 16. 2001. (iii) Enquiry Committee headed by Prof. V.G.Idichandy, considered all the records including the stock register and issue vouchers. Petitioner was called for enquiry and asked whether he had any points to state other than what was given in writing on 5. 2001 and 25. 2001. After giving opportunity to the Petitioner and not being satisfied with the explanations, punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded to the Petitioner. 3. Second Respondent filed the counter stating that as a Mess Manager, Petitioner is responsible for purchase of supplies, quality control and verification of stocks. From the Student body a complaint was made to the Warden of Tapti Hostel that some irregularities were associated with the purchase of snacks. According to the 2nd Respondent, Enquiry Committee was duly constituted which has led enquiry as per the disciplinary rules and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner. After enquiry, tentative award of punishment of compulsory retirement was proposed. According to the 2nd Respondent, Enquiry Committee was duly constituted which has led enquiry as per the disciplinary rules and sufficient opportunity was afforded to the Petitioner. After enquiry, tentative award of punishment of compulsory retirement was proposed. After calling for explanation from the Petitioner, punishment of compulsory retirement was awarded. According to the Respondents, enquiry was held in substantial compliance with the rules. 4. Assailing the impugned order, Mr.M.Kalyanasundaram, learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that Clause 9.2(b) of Hostel Management contemplates enquiry by committee and report by Dr. Nandita Das Gupta Committee is not in accordance with the rules. Learned Senior Counsel further contended that punishment imposed on the Petitioner is vitiating on account of non-affording opportunity to the Petitioner and mere asking whether anything more to be said would not amount to compliance of principles of natural justice which would vitiate the punishment imposed. 5. Mr. M.Vijay Narain, learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that Petitioner has duly participated in the enquiry and he has also asked for certain documents and when he has admitted the Charge, no further enquiry was held necessary. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that earlier, Petitioner was awarded two punishments and the quantum of punishment imposed cannot be interfered with. Placing reliance upon AIR 1996 SC 1669 [State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K.Sharma], learned Senior Counsel for the Respondents has submitted that totality of circumstances has to be taken into consideration and when there was substantial compliance of principles of natural justice, punishment imposed cannot be interfered with. 6. Charge against the Petitioner was that he had deliberately passed two payment vouchers for a single set of commodity purchased on 010. 2001 and he has violated the conduct rule 3 (ii) of the schedule IV of the Hostel Management. 7. Clause 9.1 deals with disciplinary procedure for dereliction of duty of misconduct. As per Clause 9.1 (e) Hostel Council/CSU Council shall hear the employee/employees charged with the acts of indiscipline. 8. Clause 9.1 (e) and 9.1 (f) reads as under :- 9. 1 (e): The Hostel Council/CSU Council, during the enquiry, shall hear the employee/employees charged with the acts of indiscipline and also the evidence from anyone connected or appearing to be connected with the said act of indiscipline in any way. 8. Clause 9.1 (e) and 9.1 (f) reads as under :- 9. 1 (e): The Hostel Council/CSU Council, during the enquiry, shall hear the employee/employees charged with the acts of indiscipline and also the evidence from anyone connected or appearing to be connected with the said act of indiscipline in any way. The Hostel Council/CSU Council shall take into consideration any matter or circumstances having a bearing on the charge in its deliberations. 9.1 (f): The employee/employees charged with having committed an act of indiscipline shall be given adequate opportunity to defend himself/herself/themselves before the Hostel Council/CSU Council with the help of any other employee of the Hostel Management, if he/she/they so desire; Cross examination of the witnesses shall be allowed and the proceedings of the enquiry shall be recorded. The employee/employees charged with having committed the act of indiscipline shall be entitled to a signed copy of the record of the proceedings of the enquiry. 9. Clause 9.2 deals with disciplinary procedure for Gross Misconduct. Rule 9.2 (d) reads as under:- 9. 2 (d): The Chairman shall, at his discretion, appoint an Enquiry Committee to enquire into the alleged act of gross misconduct. The committee shall consist of one member of the Hostel Management, one Warden, one faculty member nominated by the Chairman, the Assistant Registrar and the Hostel Affairs Secretary. The Chairman shall nominate one of the members of the committee as its Chairman. 10. On behalf of the Petitioner, learned Senior Counsel has contended that Enquiry Committees report is not in compliance with Clause 9.2 (d). Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that when the disciplinary proceedings contemplates holding of enquiry and affording adequate opportunity to the delinquent to defend himself, disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner is in violation of the rules. 11. When the discrepancies in the bills submitted were noticed, explanation was called for from the Petitioner by notice dated 11. 2001. Petitioner had sent his reply dated 11. 2001 stating that the accounts regarding November 2000 was already audited by the concerned authorities. They did not find any discrepancies for the said period. Thereafter, Enquiry Committee headed by Dr.Nandita Das Gupta was constituted which had gone into to the complaint. Enquiry Committee met on 12. 2001 and considered the irregularities in the supplies to Tapti Hostel and filed its detailed report. They did not find any discrepancies for the said period. Thereafter, Enquiry Committee headed by Dr.Nandita Das Gupta was constituted which had gone into to the complaint. Enquiry Committee met on 12. 2001 and considered the irregularities in the supplies to Tapti Hostel and filed its detailed report. The Committee opined that the explanation of Mess Manager of Tapti Hostel/Petitioner is not satisfactory. 12. Thereafter, Petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Committee headed by Prof. V.G.Idichandy. Petitioner has duly participated in the enquiry and by his letter dated 20.4.2001, Petitioner requested for documents – (i) Supplier bills; (ii) Payment vouchers; (iii) Stock Register pages pertaining to the commodities. The documents requested by the Petitioner was furnished to him by the letter dated 24. 2001. Thereafter, Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 24. 2001 and on 05. 2001. In his explanation dated 24. 2001, Petitioner has admitted the discrepancies of making double claim. In his explanation, Petitioner has stated that particular bill was misplaced and he has requested M/s. Arasappan to produce the duplicate bill for processing and the supplier has submitted the same without mentioning as duplicate. According to the Petitioner, while preparing the vouchers, original bill was also included by oversight and forwarded to audit for approval and that there was no motive of cheating or breach of trust behind his act. In his explanation dated 24. 2001, Petitioner has admitted the irregularity. 13. Petitioner had also sent his explanation dated 5. 2001 reiterating that questionable bill was found missing and he got the duplicate bill and prepared vouchers and due to genuine mistake, original bill which is usually to be followed in other cases was also included. In his explanation, Petitioner had taken a defence that the mistake was not pointed out during the audit. 14. When the Petitioner had admitted having given both duplicate bill and the original bill, based on Dr.Nandita Das Gupta Committee report, Petitioner was placed under suspension. As the Petitioner has admitted the irregularity, Enquiry Committee headed by Prof. V.G.Idichandy has called upon the Petitioner to state "Whether he has any additional points to state other than what was given in writing on 5. 2001 and on 25. 2001". Petitioner replied in negative stating that he has no further explanation to be given to the Committee. 15. As the Petitioner has admitted the irregularity, Enquiry Committee headed by Prof. V.G.Idichandy has called upon the Petitioner to state "Whether he has any additional points to state other than what was given in writing on 5. 2001 and on 25. 2001". Petitioner replied in negative stating that he has no further explanation to be given to the Committee. 15. By careful consideration of proceedings of various stages of enquiry, there is substantial compliance of rules for disciplinary procedure for the misconduct. By submitting his explanation dated 24. 2001 and on 5. 2001 and subsequent show cause notice for explanation with respect to the Enquiry Committees report, in my considered view that there was substantial compliance of the rules for disciplinary procedure. 16. Grievance of the Petitioner that enquiry is vitiated due to violation of principles of natural justice is unfounded. Principles of natural justice has undergone sea-change. Elaborating the principles to be followed in the context of disciplinary enquiry and order of punishment imposed by the employer and employee, in AIR 1996 SC 1669 (State Bank of patiala and others v. S.K.Sharma), Supreme Court has evolved the basic principle of natural justice. The relevant principles for the purpose of this case are – 4 (a), (b) and 6 which reads as under:- " ........... 4 (a) : In the case of a procedural provision which is not of a mandatory character, the complaint of violation has to be examined from the standpoint of substantial compliance. Be that as it may, the order passed in violation of such a provision can be set aside only where such violation has occasioned prejudice to the delinquent employee. 4 (b) : In the case of violation of a procedural provision, which is of a mandatory character, it has to be ascertained whether the provision is conceived in the interest of the person proceeded against or in public interest. If it is found to be the former, then it must be seen whether the delinquent officer has waived the said requirement, either expressly or by his conduct. If he is found to have waived it, then the order of punishment cannot be set aside on the ground of said violation. If it is found to be the former, then it must be seen whether the delinquent officer has waived the said requirement, either expressly or by his conduct. If he is found to have waived it, then the order of punishment cannot be set aside on the ground of said violation. If, on the other hand, it is found that the delinquent officer/employee has not waived it or that the provision could not be waived by him, then the Court or Tribunal should make appropriate directions (include the setting aside of the order of punishment). The ultimate test is always the same, viz., test of prejudice or the test of fair hearing, as it may be called. 5.......... 6. While applying the rule of audi alteram partem (the primary principle of natural justice) the Court/Tribunal/Authority must always bear in mind the ultimate and overriding objective underlying the said rules, viz., to ensure a fair hearing and to ensure that there is no failure of justice. It is this objective which should guide them in applying the rule to varying situations that arise before them. 17. Petitioner himself had admitted having given original as well as duplicate bill. But the Petitioner has only stated that he has given so due to genuine mistake. Petitioner has duly participated in the enquiry and has also offered his explanation. When there is substantial compliance of disciplinary procedure, it cannot be assailed unless Petitioner proves serious prejudice. Petitioner has not proved any serious prejudice being caused to him. 18. After the decisions of the Supreme Court in S.K. Sharmas case [ (1996) 3 SCC 364 ] and in Rajendra Singhs case [ (1996) 5 SCC 460 ], principles of natural justice had undergone sea-change. Principle of law is that unless some real prejudice has been caused to the Petitioner, there cannot be compliance of violation of principles of natural justice. 19. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It must be seen in circumstantial flexibility. It has separate facets. It has in recent time also undergone a sea change. In Ajit Kumar Nag v. G.M. (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. 19. The principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It must be seen in circumstantial flexibility. It has separate facets. It has in recent time also undergone a sea change. In Ajit Kumar Nag v. G.M. (PJ), Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. [ 2005 AIR SCW 4986], Supreme Court held as under:- "We are aware of the normal rule that a person must have a fair trial and a fair appeal and he cannot be asked to be satisfied with an unfair trial and a fair appeal. We are also conscious of the general principle that pre-decisional hearing is better and should always be preferred to post-decisional hearing. We are further aware that it has been stated that apart from laws of men, laws of God also observe the rule of audi alteram partem. It has been stated that the first hearing in human history was given in the Garden of Eden. God did not pass sentence upon Adam and Eve before giving an opportunity to show cause as to why they had eaten the forbidden fruit. (See R. v. University of Cambridge) But we are also aware that the principles of natural justice are not rigid or immutable and hence they cannot be imprisoned in a straitjacket. They must yield to and change with exigencies of situations. They must be confined within their limits and cannot be allowed to run wild. It has been stated: ‘ “To do a great right” after all, it is permissible sometimes “to do a little wrong”.’ [Per Mukharji, C.J. in Charan Lal Sahu v. Union of India (Bhopal Gas Disaster), SCC p.705, para 124.] While interpreting legal provisions, a court of law cannot be unmindful of the hard realities of life. In our opinion, the approach of the court in dealing with such cases should be pragmatic rather than pedantic, realistic rather than doctrinaire, functional rather than formal and practical rather than ‘precedential’.” .20. In Canara Bank v. Debasis Das & Ors. [ (2003) 4 SCC 557 ], Supreme Court referred to the prejudice doctrine stating:- ."Additionally, there was no material placed by the employee to show as to how he has been prejudiced. Though in all cases the post-decisional hearing cannot be a substitute for pre-decisional hearing, in the case at hand the position is different." 21. [ (2003) 4 SCC 557 ], Supreme Court referred to the prejudice doctrine stating:- ."Additionally, there was no material placed by the employee to show as to how he has been prejudiced. Though in all cases the post-decisional hearing cannot be a substitute for pre-decisional hearing, in the case at hand the position is different." 21. The question as to whether in this case there has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice will have to be considered from two different angles. Firstly, the effect of the disciplinary authority having not given him an opportunity of hearing while differing with the findings of the inquiry officer as has been laid down in Punjab National Bank & Ors. v. Kunj Behari Mishra [ (1998) 7 SCC 84 ] may be noticed. .22. The principles of natural justice, it is trite, cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. In a given case the party should not only be required to show that he did not have a proper notice resulting in violation of principles of natural justice but also to show that he was seriously prejudiced thereby. In Chairman, Board of Mining Examination and Chief Inspector of Mines v. Ramjee (1977) 2 SCC 256 , Supreme Court held as follows:- ."....Natural justice is no unruly horse, no lurking land mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision-maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essential processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative realities and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical nor fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction. No man shall be hit below the belt — that is the conscience of the matter." (See Union of India v. Anand Kumar Pandey and others [JT 1994 (4) SC 419]; (1994) 5 SCC 663 and R.S. Dass v. Union of India JT 1986 SC 1043; [1986 (Supp) SCC 617. 23. In Anand Kumar Pandeys case Supreme Court again reiterated that the rules of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket and applicability thereof would depend upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. 24. 23. In Anand Kumar Pandeys case Supreme Court again reiterated that the rules of natural justice cannot be put in a straitjacket and applicability thereof would depend upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. 24. In Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan [ JT 2000 (9) SC 502 ; (2000) 7 SCC 529 ], it was held: "The principle that in addition to breach of natural justice, prejudice must also be proved has been developed in several cases. In K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India ( 1984 (1) SCR 184 ) Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as he then was) also laid down the principle that not mere violation of natural justice but de facto prejudice (other than non-issue of notice) had to be proved. It was observed, quoting Wade’s Administrative Law (5th Edn., pp. 472-75), as follows: "[I]t is not possible to lay down rigid rules as to when the principles of natural justice are to apply, nor as to their scope and extent. ... There must also have been some real prejudice to the complainant; there is no such thing as a merely technical infringement of natural justice. The requirements of natural justice must depend on the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the inquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject-matter to be dealt with, and so forth." "Since then, this Court has consistently applied the principle of prejudice in several cases. The above ruling and various other rulings taking the same view have been exhaustively referred to in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (JT 1996 (3) SC 722). In that case, the principle of ‘prejudice’ has been further elaborated. The same principle has been reiterated again in Rajendra Singh v. State of M.P. [JT 1996 (7) SC 216]" 25. In Khaitan (India) Ltd. and others v. Union of India & Ors. [Cal LT 1992 (2) HC 478], it was held as follows:- "The concept of principles of natural justice has undergone a radical change. It is not in every case, that the High Courts would entertain a writ application only on the ground that violation of principles of natural justice has been alleged. [Cal LT 1992 (2) HC 478], it was held as follows:- "The concept of principles of natural justice has undergone a radical change. It is not in every case, that the High Courts would entertain a writ application only on the ground that violation of principles of natural justice has been alleged. The Apex Court, in State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma[JT 1996 (3) SC 722] has clearly held that a person complaining about the violation of the principles of natural justice must show causation of a prejudice against him by reason of such violation. The Apex Court has held that the principles of natural justice, may be said to have been violated which require an intervention when no hearing, no opportunity or no notice has been given. Reference in this connection may also be made to Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karmakar, [JT 1993 (6) SC 1; AIR 1994 SC 1076]. The question as to the effect of non-grant of enough opportunity to the learned counsel for the appellant by the Commission to meet the allegations made in the supplementary affidavit requires investigation. As to what extent the appellant has suffered prejudice would be a question which would fall for a decision of a higher court. Where such a disputed question arises, in the considered opinion of this Court, a writ application will not be entertained only because violation of natural justice has been alleged and more so, in a case of this nature where such a contention can also be raised before the highest court of India. A distinction has to be borne in mind between a forum of appeal which is presided by an administrative body and the Apex Court as an appellate court.” The principles of natural justice, it is trite, must not be stretched too far. 26. Question as to what extent, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case, in (2005) 3 SCC 409 [ Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another v. S.G.Kotturappa and another], Supreme Court has held as follows:- "....The question as to what extent, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with would depend upon the fact situation obtaining in each case. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum. They cannot be put in any straitjacket formula. The principles of natural justice cannot be applied in vacuum. They cannot be put in any straitjacket formula. The principles of natural justice are furthermore not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality. What is needed for the employer in a case of this nature is to apply the objective criteria for arriving at the subjective satisfaction. If the criteria required for arriving at an objective satisfaction stands fulfilled, the principles of natural justice may not have to be complied with, in view of the fact that the same stood complied with before imposing punishments upon the respondents on each occasion and, thus, the respondents, therefore, could not have improved their stand even if a further opportunity was given. (See Escorts Farms Ltd. v. Commr., Kumaon Division, (2004) 4 SCC 281 , Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala (2004) 6 SCC 311 , A. Umarani v. Registrar, Coop.Societies (2004) 7 SCC 112 : 2004 SCC (L&S) 918 and Divisional Manager, Plantation Division v. Munnu Barrick (2005) 2 SCC 237 :2005 SCC (L&S) 200." 27. For the proved misconduct, Enquiry Committee has proposed to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. Enquiry Committee has sent show cause notice dated 07. 2004 to the Petitioner informing the proposed punishment of compulsory retirement and calling for his explanation. On the report of the Enquiry Officer and tentative decision of the Hostel Management, imposed major penalty of compulsory retirement. In response, Petitioner has also submitted his explanation dated 07. 2004. Having regard to the nature of misconduct and also keeping in view the past misconduct of the Petitioner, Hostel Management has imposed punishment of compulsory retirement. 28. In (2007) 2 MLJ 278 (SC), [Union of India and others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari], the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "To put differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations, it may in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. Further to shorten litigations, it may in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed." " The above position was recently reiterated in Union of India and another v. K.G.Soni 2006 (6) Supreme 389 : 2006 III LLJ 802 (SC) following Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and others v. Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC 584 : (2005) 10 SCC 84 : 2005-I-LLJ-730 (SC). 29. In any event, compulsory retirement though a major punishment, by compulsory retirement, Petitioner does not loose the terminal benefits. Petitioner was due to retirement on superannuation on 30.9.2005. Punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed on 01. 2005. Therefore, it cannot be said that the punishment of compulsory retirement awarded to the Petitioner is harsh or disproportinate warranting interference. 30. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Respondents are directed to disburse the retiral benefits within a period of eight weeks from the date of this order. Petitioner shall submit pension papers with all correct particulars. On receipt of pension papers, Respondents are directed to process the pension papers within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of pension papers.