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 had stated that he was appointed as a Temporary Casual Labour, on 12. 1970. After having been promoted, he was working as a Stores Supervisor at the Central Stores, Chennai, under the fourth the respondent. On 24. 2000, the petitioner was working as a Stores Supervisor in the Central Stores, General Construction Circle, Ambattur. There were four Stores Custodians working under the petitioner. While so, one of the Stores Custodians R.Varadarajan, who was on duty on the relevant date had obtained the signature of the petitioner in the gate pass No.5886 for sending the materials, as per the requisition No.648310 to AE/SSE/Korattur, through a vehicle bearing Registration No.TN.01-B-6094. Since the petitioner had been informed that the materials were left over materials, he had instructed the Checker at the gate to verify the materials, properly, and to tally the same with the requisition, as the Stores Custodian, R.Varadarajan, had obtained the petitioners signature in the gate pass. However, before the vehicles had been checked by the Checker, the Executive Engineer /transformer Bay, Ambattur, had made a surprise visit to the Stores and he had found out that the materials had been loaded in the vehicle without proper requisition. Since the gate pass was bearing the signature of the petitioner, the Executive Engineer/Transformer Bay, Ambattur, had issued a charge memo, dated 16. 2000, framing five charges against the petitioner. .3. It has been further stated that the none of the five charges relate to the allegations of misappropriation by the petitioner. In fact, the Stores Custodian, R.Varadarajan, had admitted his guilt. There is no Rule or Regulation that the Stores Supervisor should personally check the gate pass, the materials and the requisition. There has been no negligence or willful illegality committed by the petitioner, amounting to grave misconduct. The charge memo has been issued by the fifth respondent, who is not the competent authority. It is only the Superintending Engineer, the third respondent herein, who is the competent to issue the charge memo to the petitioner. Hence, the charge memo is non est in the eye of law. 4. It has been further stated that based on the charge memo, an enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner. It is only the Superintending Engineer, the third respondent herein, who is the competent to issue the charge memo to the petitioner. Hence, the charge memo is non est in the eye of law. 4. It has been further stated that based on the charge memo, an enquiry had been conducted against the petitioner. The enquiry officer, without properly appreciating the evidence on record, had submitted his report stating that the charges 1 to 3 were proved and the charges 4 and 5 had been partly proved. On the basis of the said report, the third respondent had issued the show cause notice, dated 22. 2001, to the petitioner, proposing the punishment of reduction of pay in the minimum of the time scale of pay in the post of Stores Supervisor, for a period of three years. The said show cause notice is also arbitrary and illegal and it has been issued without the authority of law. Though the petitioner had submitted a detailed explanation to the third respondent against the proposed punishment, the third respondent had passed the impugned order, without properly considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. The said order passed by the third respondent, reducing the pay of the petitioner to the minimum of the time scale of pay in the post of Supervisor, for a period of two years including the period of leave, if any spent, is arbitrary, illegal and is in violation of the various decisions of the Courts of law. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the third respondent, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the second respondent, on 211. 2001. The second respondent, who is the appellate authority, without properly considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, had dismissed the appeal, by an order, dated 111. 2002. Further, there was no monetary loss to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. The petitioner has not committed any wilful act of misconduct. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the constitution of India. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. .7. The main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the charge memo has been issued by the fifth respondent, without jurisdiction. He has no power or authority to issue the said charge memo. 6. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. .7. The main contention raised by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the charge memo has been issued by the fifth respondent, without jurisdiction. He has no power or authority to issue the said charge memo. It is only the third respondent, as the disciplinary authority, can issue the charge memo. Hence, the entire disciplinary proceedings conducted against the petitioner is vitiated. Further, the charges leveled against the petitioner are vague and non-specific. No misconduct had been made out, in accordance with 19(iii) and (ix) of the Standing Orders applicable to the Workmen engaged in clerical Departments of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board. Since the Stores Custodian, R.Varadarajan, had admitted his guilt and the petitioner having instructed the Checker to verify the materials and to tally the same with the requisition, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the alleged misconduct. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Electricity Board had submitted that it was the duty and the responsibility of the petitioner to verify the materials, based on the requisition, before signing the gate pass. In fact, the petitioner had stated that he need not verify the materials, unless they are of high value and the verification need not be done in a routine manner. Only on serious suspicion, the verification would be done. By such statements made by the petitioner, it is clear that he had committed serious misconduct by his negligent attitude. In fact, the petitioner had signed the gate pass, without the necessary requisition. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board had also submitted that the Executive Engineer, the fifth respondent herein, is the competent authority to issue the charge memo against the petitioner, in accordance with the service Regulations of the respondent Board, applicable to the petitioner. The final orders had been passed by the third respondent, who is the Appointing Authority. Therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the second and the third respondents, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay in the minimum of time scale of pay in the post of Stores Supervisor, for a period of two years. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. In C.Balakrishnan Vs. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had relied on the following decisions in support of his contentions: 1. In C.Balakrishnan Vs. S.E., Generation, Kudah (1992 I LLJ 750), this Court had held that the punishment of stoppage of annual increments for two years, with cumulative effect, including of periods spent on leave, as punishment for proved misconduct, imposed on the employee, without following the provisions of the Standing Orders, requiring the consideration of the past record of the service, gravity of the misconduct, extenuating and aggravating circumstances, is illegal. 2. In BOMMUSAMY A. Vs. THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ( 2007 (3) CTC 518 ), a Division Bench of this Court had held that only the appointing authority of a delinquent can issue a charge memo, under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the impugned orders issued by the third respondent, dated 21. 2001, and confirmed by the order, dated 111. 2002, passed by the second respondent, imposing the punishment of reduction of pay on the petitioner. 12. It is clear that the petitioner has committed a misconduct, in accordance with the Standing Orders applicable to his service. Further, from the Service Regulations of the respondent Board, it is seen that the charge memo had been issued by the Competent Authority and therefore, there is no irregularity or illegality vitiating the enquiry proceedings held against the petitioner. 13. Further, the petitioner had admitted that he had not verified the materials in question. The materials had been loaded in the vehicle without proper requisition. Only for the reason that the stores custodian, R.Varadarajan, had admitted his guilt, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. The appellate authority had also considered the contention raised by the petitioner before dismissing the appeal, by its order, dated 111. 2002. The contention that the petitioner has not committed any willful act of misconduct and that there was no monetary loss to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board cannot be countenanced. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed. The appellate authority had also considered the contention raised by the petitioner before dismissing the appeal, by its order, dated 111. 2002. The contention that the petitioner has not committed any willful act of misconduct and that there was no monetary loss to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board cannot be countenanced. In such circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.