Judgment :- Heard Mr.S.Periyaswamy, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.M.Vaidyanathan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has stated that he was posted as Stores Custodian, with effect from 6. 1988, at Central Stores/Ambattur, under the second respondent. Thereafter, he was promoted as a Stores Supervisor, with effect from 110. 1997. While so, the second respondent had issued a show cause notice, by his proceedings, dated 16. 1999, to recover the amount for the loss of copper scrap weighing 721.80 Kgs. and action for the abnormal excess of 725 Kgs. of copper scrap available in stock. In spite of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the second respondent had issued a show cause notice, in Memo No.121/2001/ADM.1/A2/F.DP./2001, dated 12. 2001, proposing to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Three charges had been framed against the petitioner, under Clause 19 of the Standing orders for Workmen Engaged in Clerical Departments of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Based on the charges levelled against the petitioner, an enquiry had been conducted by the Executive Engineer/ Transmission Lines Construction/Poonamallee. .3. The petitioner has further stated that the enquiry officer had submitted his report, after conducting an enquiry, coming to the conclusion that only charge No.2 had been proved and that charge Nos.1 and 3 had not been proved. However, the second respondent, without accepting the findings of the enquiry officer, had issued a second show cause notice to the petitioner, dated 19. 2001, disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer in respect of charge No.1 and proposing to recover the cost of copper scrap. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation. However, the second respondent had passed the final order, dated 11. 2001, without properly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner ordering the recovery of a sum of Rs.88,926/- towards the cost of 721.80 kgs. of copper scrap stating that the amount would be recovered from the petitioner at the rate of Rs.2000/-per month, from his pay, starting from the month of November, 2001. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the averments made by the petitioner had been denied. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, the averments made by the petitioner had been denied. It has been stated that the petitioner was working as a Stores Custodian of A Stores of the Central Stores of the General Construction Circle, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai. On a stock verification made for the year, 19961997 for the A stores, it was found that 721.80 kgs. of copper scrap was short, on 210. 1996, for which the petitioner had signed the Daily Report sheets as the Stores Custodian. Thus, there was a loss of Rs.88,926/- to the respondent Board. .5. It has been further stated that when the discrepancy was recorded in the Daily Report sheets and signed by the Stores Custodian, it is his bounden duty to prepare the initial adjustment to bring the stores ledger balance quantity equal to that of the actual physical quantity on the date of stock verification. The petitioner has not done the said work immediately on coming to know about the discrepancy. He had made the adjustment only, on 6. 1998, after the delay of 19 months and that too, after issuing of repeated instructions. In such circumstances, the second respondent in his Memos, dated 16. 1993/37. 1999, had directed the petitioner to explain as to why the cost of 721.80 kgs. of copper scrap, found to be short during the stock verification, should not be recovered from the petitioner. Again, by a memo, dated 19. 1999, the second respondent had informed the petitioner proposing to recover the cost of 721.80 kgs. of copper scrap amounting to Rs.88,926/-, besides initiating disciplinary proceedings for the lapses committed by the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted his explanation, dated 111. 1999. Since the explanation submitted by the petitioner was not convincing, the second respondent, by his memo, dated 19. 2001, had framed three charges against the petitioner. After holding an enquiry, the second respondent, vide his proceedings, dated 11. 2001, had ordered the recovery of Rs.88,926/- from the petitioner towards the cost of 721.80 kgs. of copper scrap and he had directed that a sum of Rs.2,000/- should be recovered from the petitioner from the month of November, 2001. 6. After holding an enquiry, the second respondent, vide his proceedings, dated 11. 2001, had ordered the recovery of Rs.88,926/- from the petitioner towards the cost of 721.80 kgs. of copper scrap and he had directed that a sum of Rs.2,000/- should be recovered from the petitioner from the month of November, 2001. 6. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the first respondent. After, considering the appeal on merits, the first respondent, by his order, dated 35. 2002, rejected the appeal, confirming the order passed by the second respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner had preferred the present writ petition before this court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the impugned order passed by the second and third respondents are arbitrary and illegal. The order of recovery passed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the alleged charges levelled against him. The first respondent had no good reasons to disagree with the findings of the enquiry officer that the charge Nos.1 and 3 were not proved and that the petitioner did not cause any loss to the respondent Board. Since there was an error in the balance used to weigh the stock, the discrepancy had occurred during the stock verification. Since there was no loss caused to the respondent Board, the order of recovery passed against the petitioner is unsustainable in the eye of law. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that when the disciplinary authority differs from the findings of the enquiry officer, another full-fledged enquiry ought to have been conducted to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner. A mere notice to the petitioner would not be sufficient. .9. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent Board had submitted that there was no irregularity or illegality in the order passed against the petitioner to recover the cost of 721.80 kgs. of copper scrap found to be short during the stock verification conducted at the A Stores of the Central Stores of the General Construction Circle, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai, on 210. 1996. The petitioner as the Stores Custodian had signed the Daily Report sheets agreeing that there was a shortage in stock. of copper scrap found to be short during the stock verification conducted at the A Stores of the Central Stores of the General Construction Circle, Ambattur Industrial Estate, Chennai, on 210. 1996. The petitioner as the Stores Custodian had signed the Daily Report sheets agreeing that there was a shortage in stock. In fact, it was the duty of the petitioner to prepare the initial adjustment to bring the stores ledger balance quantity equal to that of the actual physical quantity, on the date of stock verification. He had made the adjustment only, on 6. 1998, after a delay of 19 months, after repeated instructions had been issued to him. Even though the enquriy officer had found that the charge Nos.1 and 3 were not proved, the disciplinary authority, the second respondent herein, had disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer based on valid reasons. The disciplinary authority had found that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved. In such circumstances, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order passed against the petitioner, to recover a sum of Rs.88,926/-towards the cost of 721.80 kgs. of copper scraps found to be short during the stock verification for the year 1996-1997. There is no doubt that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner, based on the charges levelled against him, was fair and proper. Even though the enquiry officer had found that the charges Nos.1 and 3 were not proved and when he had found that only charge No.2 had been proved, the second respondent disciplinary authority had disagreed with the enquiry officer and come to the conclusion that all the three charges levelled against the petitioner had been proved, based on the evidence available during the enquiry. 11. The contention of the petitioner, that a fresh enquiry has to be conducted before the disciplinary authority had come to the conclusion that charge Nos.1 and 3 had also been proved, cannot be countenanced. A notice had been issued to the petitioner and his explanation had been obtained before the second respondent disciplinary authority had differed from the findings of the enquiry officer. A notice had been issued to the petitioner and his explanation had been obtained before the second respondent disciplinary authority had differed from the findings of the enquiry officer. 12. In such circumstances, it cannot be held that the impugned order of the second respondent, dated 11. 2001, and the order of the first respondent, dated 35. 2002, confirming the order of the second respondent, are bad in law. In such view of the matter, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is stands dismissed. No costs.