Judgment :- M. Sathyanarayanan, J 1. The appellant is the writ petitioner and aggrieved against the dismissal of the writ petition in which challenge was made to the order of termination of his service, has filed this writ appeal. 2. The facts in brief which are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:- The petitioner was selected as the Assistant Manager (Legal) (Trainee) for one year vide proceedings of respondents 2 and 3 dated 27. 1983 and thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Manager (Legal) on regular basis on 27. 1984. On 9. 1986, all of a sudden, the appellant was transferred from Legal department and was kept idle without allocation of any work for about 5 months and whereas one A.V.Pandian, though was a junior Superintendent, was entrusted with the affairs of the law department. When Mr.A.V.Pandian was incharge of Legal Department, a bus belonging to the third respondent Corporation was attached on 1. 1987 pertaining to decree obtained in Motor Accident Case. 3. The third respondent vide proceedings in Memo dated 3. 1987, has called for explanation from the appellant alleging among other things that in spite of receipt of two Court Notices dated 16. 1985 in M.C.O.P.Nos.86 and 87 of 1985, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam claiming compensation, he has not taken any steps to follow up the matter which resulted in the third respondent being set ex parte in both cases and further he has failed to take steps for setting aside the ex parte order passed in those cases, which ultimately resulted in the attachment of one of the buses belonging to the third respondent Corporation at the mid point of journey. It is further alleged in the said memo that the attachment of the bus was also appeared as news item in the Hindu News Daily dated 1. 1987 and the Corporation has to remit a sum of Rs.2,22,213.80 for getting release of the bus, which resulted in heavy financial loss. Therefore, the appellant put the Management in the most embarrassing situation because of his failure to take prompt action in respect of case pending before the Courts and it would amount to grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. Therefore, the appellant put the Management in the most embarrassing situation because of his failure to take prompt action in respect of case pending before the Courts and it would amount to grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. Therefore in the said memo of the third respondent, the appellant herein was called upon to explain within three days from the date of receipt of the memo as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. 4. The appellant on receipt of the said memo, had requested for furnishing of certain documents and thereafter submitted his explanation dated 19. 1988 to the said memo. In the reply, the appellant submitted that he is being victimised of the Managing Director to promote one A.V.Pandian - a backdoor entrant who had not even passed law in his first attempt and also to accompany one Somasundaram. It was further submitted by the appellant that when he was Assistant Manager (Legal), two cases were enrusted to the Advocate viz., Sadagopan and on his transfer from law department on 9. 1986, it was the duty of the persons who are incharge of the Department to take necessary follow up action to defend the case and since they failed to do so, ex parte decree came to be passed on 211. 1986. The Corporation has not taken any steps to set aside the ex parte decree immediately and they have taken 342 days to file application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is further submitted by the appellant in his explanation that the charge is defective in material particulars and it is vindictive in nature mischievous and misleading. 5. The third respondent Management vide proceedings dated 15. 1987, had appointed Thiru.C.L.Sahasranamam, Deputy Commissioner of Labour (retired) as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the charges framed against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer had commenced his enquiry on 25. 1987 and concluded the same on 16. 1988 and thereafter submitted his report dated 27. 1988, wherein he has stated that charges framed against the appellant have been proved. .6. The third respondent vide memo dated 310. 1988, had communicated the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the appellant and called upon him to show cause as to why he should not be terminated from service. The appellant submitted his explanation. The third respondent in its order dated 2. .6. The third respondent vide memo dated 310. 1988, had communicated the findings of the Enquiry Officer to the appellant and called upon him to show cause as to why he should not be terminated from service. The appellant submitted his explanation. The third respondent in its order dated 2. 1989, has stated that due to the gross negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the appellant during his tenure as Assistant Manager (Legal) from 10. 1984 to 9. 1986, progress of the cases were not properly monitored at proper intervals, which led to the passing of the Award and later, attachment of the bus. Therefore, the second respondent has terminated the services of the appellant with effect from the date of his suspension. The appellant herein aggrieved by the said order of termination, has filed the writ petition in W.P.No.10495 of 1990. The third respondent filed his counter, for which reply affidavit was filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. This Court on taking into consideration the averments made in the affidavit filed in writ petition, counter affidavit and reply affidavit, found that the appellant as the Head of the Legal Department, is responsible and there is nothing on record to suggest that number of other persons are also responsible. As regards the prejudice caused regarding the non-serving of the charge memo, it was found that the same has not resulted in prejudice and that the principles of natural justice have been followed. As regards the contention raised by the writ petitioner/appellant regarding the applicability of the Standing Orders, reliance was placed upon Rule 17(6) of the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment(Standing Orders) Rules 1947 by the respondent and the Court taking into consideration of the same has found that in the absence of any material of additional information, the submissions made in that regard by the writ petitioner/appellant is unsustainable. Therefore for the said reasons, this Court has dismissed the writ petition. The writ petitioner aggrieved by the same, preferred this writ appeal. 7. Heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for Mr.Ravi Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.R.Thirugnanam, Special Government Pleader for the first respondent. Even though the fourth respondent was served and his name appeared in the cause list, there was no representation on his behalf. .8. 7. Heard Mr.S.Subbiah, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for Mr.Ravi Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 and Mr.R.Thirugnanam, Special Government Pleader for the first respondent. Even though the fourth respondent was served and his name appeared in the cause list, there was no representation on his behalf. .8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant apart from reiterating the submissions made during the hearing of the writ petition, submitted that the memo dated 3. 1987 is not a charge memo at all and in the absence of the charge memo, disciplinary proceedings cannot commence and therefore the entire proceedings in pursuant to the said memo are vitiated. It is further submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that admittedly the appellant was transferred suddenly on 9. 1986 from Legal Department to Statistics Department and thereafter one Mr.A.V.Pandian, Superintendent (law) took charge of the Legal Department and he has not taken any steps to set aside the ex parte decree and after that Execution Proceedings was levied and in E.P. also there was no contest, which resulted in the attachment of the bus on 1. 1987 and admittedly no disciplinary action has been taken against Mr.A.V.Pandian and other officials regarding non-taking of steps to get the ex parte decree set aside in the main O.P. as well as in the Execution Proceedings. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also drew the attention of this Court to the enquiry proceedings and the testimonies of the Management Witnesses and submitted that the testimonies even if they trustworthy, have not proved the case projected by the department against the appellant and therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were based on no evidence and therefore the impugned order of termination is per se unsustainable in law and on facts. Alternatively, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that assuming that the charges have been proved against the appellant, the punishment is disproportionate and therefore the order of termination may be set aside and lesser punishment may be imposed upon the appellant. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of his submissions placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2007(5) Scale 724 - Coal India Ltd., & Ors. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant in support of his submissions placed reliance upon the judgment reported in 2007(5) Scale 724 - Coal India Ltd., & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra and (2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 694 - UCO Bank and another vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor. 11. In 2007(5) Scale 724 - Coal India Ltd., & Ors. vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra, it has been held that "a departmental proceeding is ordinarily said to be initiated only when a charge sheet is issued." 12. In (2007)6 Supreme Court Cases 694 -UCO Bank and another vs. Rajinder Lal Capoor, the Honble Supreme Court of India placed reliance upon the judgment reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 - Union of India vs. K.V.Janakiraman and (2007) 9 SCC 625 - Coal India Ltd., vs. Saroj Kumar Mishra, held that: "The departmental proceeding, it is trite law, is not initiated merely by issuance of a show-cause notice. It is initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued." 13. Per contra, Mr.P.Wilson, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 would submit that the appellant being the legally qualified person has understood the memo dated 3. 1987 as a charge memo and also submitted his explanation and in the absence of any prejudice being caused for non issuance of the charge memo it is not open to the appellant at this stage to contend otherwise. It is further submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that fair opportunities were given to the appellant and principles of natural justice were scrupulously followed during the course of the domestic enquiry and the findings of the enquiry officer were also given to him and on receipt of his explanation only the order of termination came to be passed. It is also submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the appellant being the Head of the department, has failed to supervise effectively and has not followed up the cases entrusted to the advocates, which resulted in the passing of the ex parte decree and ultimately resulted in attachment of the bus which caused disrepute to the third respondent Corporation. The punishment of termination imposed on the appellant was just and proper and adequate and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent cannot obstruct the findings of the enquiry officer and the punishment imposed by the Management. 14. The punishment of termination imposed on the appellant was just and proper and adequate and this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent cannot obstruct the findings of the enquiry officer and the punishment imposed by the Management. 14. The learned Additional Advocate General has placed reliance upon the judgments reported in: .(i) (2004)8 Supreme Court Cases 200 -Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chahmazdoor Sangh and another; .(ii) (2005)8 Supreme Court Cases 211 -U.P.State Textile Corporation Ltd., vs. P.C.Chaturvedi and others. 15. In (2004)8 Supreme Court Cases 200 -Krishnakali Tea Estate vs. Akhil Bharatiya Chahmazdoor Sangh and another, omission to mention particular offence in the charge memo for came up for consideration and the Honble Supreme Court of India found that the delinquents having joined issue on this question of fact, cannot plead that they have been in any manner prejudiced by the said omission or misled by such omission nor can they contend that the said omission has occasioned a failure of justice. 16. In (2005)8 Supreme Court Cases 211 -U.P.State Textile Corporation Ltd., vs. P.C.Chaturvedi and others, non-supply of relevant documents in a domestic enquiry came up for consideration and it has been held that in the absence of showing how alleged non-supply of documents caused prejudice to workman, the same cannot by itself vitiate the enquiry. 17. The Court has considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and also perused the typed set of documents. 18. A perusal of the memo dated 3. 1987 would reveal that the appellant was asked to explain within three days from the date of receipt of the memo as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him with regard to the alleged delinquency on his part while he was working as Assistant Manager (Legal). The appellant in his reply dated 19. 1988 has proceeded on the footing that the memo as a charge sheet, but however, submitted that it is defective of material particulars and is vindictive in nature, mischievous and misleading. Since the appellant has treated the memo dated 3. 1987 as a charge memo and submitted his explanation, we hold that no prejudice has been caused to him on account of the said procedure adopted by the third respondent. 19. However, on a perusal of the memo dated 3. Since the appellant has treated the memo dated 3. 1987 as a charge memo and submitted his explanation, we hold that no prejudice has been caused to him on account of the said procedure adopted by the third respondent. 19. However, on a perusal of the memo dated 3. 1987 we find that under what provision of Law or Rules or Regulations the said memo has been issued to the appellant. It was submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that at that time, no service rules were framed by the third respondent Corporation and therefore model standing orders applicable to workmen under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules 1947 were applied in respect of the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant. 20. We perused the Model Standing Orders applicable to workmen. As per Order No.1, Workmen shall be classified as (1) Permanent; (2) Probationers; (3) Temporary; (4) Badli; (5) Casual; (6) Seasonal; and (7) Apprentices. Order No.16 states about the Acts and omissions constituting misconduct and as per 16(k), negligence or neglect of work also constitute misconduct. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the appellant was guilty of negligence or neglect of work and therefore disciplinary action was initiated against him. Order No.17 states about the punishment for misconduct and as per 17(6) if a workman who is suspended is after enquiry dismissed by the employer, he shall be deemed to have been dismissed with effect on and from the date of suspension, unless otherwise indicated in the order of dismissal. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, the appellant was suspended and by the impugned order of termination, he was ordered to be terminated from the date of suspension order. 21. A perusal of the Model Standing Orders Applicable to Workmen would reveal that no procedure has been contemplated in respect of proceedings to be initiated against the delinquents for imposing major penalty. The appellant who was Assistant Manager (Legal) was admittedly working in a supervisory capacity and therefore he cannot be termed as a workman coming under the said classification as defined in Model Standing Orders Applicable to Workmen. That apart, the facts of the case would reveal that on 16. 1985 summons in M.C.O.P.Nos.86 and 87 of 1985 were served on the third respondent Corporation and the summons which were received at the Head office were forwarded to Mr.Sadagopan, Advocate on 7. 1985. That apart, the facts of the case would reveal that on 16. 1985 summons in M.C.O.P.Nos.86 and 87 of 1985 were served on the third respondent Corporation and the summons which were received at the Head office were forwarded to Mr.Sadagopan, Advocate on 7. 1985. On 7. 1985 a letter was sent to the Branch Manager, Tindivanam and he has given a reply on 17. 1985. .22. As per the summons the date of hearing of the above said M.C.O.P. cases was fixed on 27. 1985 and the ex parte decree came to be passed on 4. 1986 and the appellant was suddenly transferred on 9. 1986 from the Legal Department to the Statistics Department and Mr.A.V.Pandian, Superintendent (Law) took charge of the department. Thereafter, the claimants levied Execution Proceedings and in Execution Petitions also, the third respondent remain absent and was set ex parte and after the order of attachment, a bus belonging to the third respondent Corporation was attached on 1. 1987. The memo dated 3. 1987 was served on the appellant regarding the proposed disciplinary action. In the said memo, it has been stated that the appellant had failed to take steps for setting aside the ex parte order, which resulted in the attachment of the bus while it was plying from Chidambaram to Chennai. The fact remains that after the ex parte decree was passed in the above said M.C.O.Ps. on 4. 1986, the appellant was transferred on 9. 1986 and thereafter Mr.A.V.Pandian, against whom the appellant has made allegations was put incharge of the Legal Department and he and his subordinates have not taken any steps to set aside the ex parte decree and also not taken any steps to appear in the Execution Proceedings, which resulted in the passing of the order of attachment of the bus and the attachment was effected on 1. 1987. 23. It is pertinent to pointout at this juncture that during the domestic enquiry Mr.A.V.Pandian has appeared as the Management Representative and the testimonies of the Management Witnesses would reveal that the subordinates working in the Legal Department have also not taken any effective steps to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the main M.C.O.P. as well as in the Execution Proceedings, which ultimately resulted in attachment of a running bus. 24. 24. A perusal of the enquiry report would reveal that the Enquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the events that took place after 9. 1986 i.e. after the transfer of the appellant. Admittedly, even after the transfer of the appellant from the Legal Department on 9. 1986, his successor or his subordinates have not only taken any steps to set aside the ex parte decree passed in M.C.O.Ps. but allowed the passing of the ex parte order in the Execution Petitions also, which resulted in the attachment of a running bus on 1. 1987. The appellant has specifically took that stand in his explanation to the memo as well as to the show cause notice before the imposition of the punishment. 25. The fact remains that the appellant while he was incharge of the Legal Department have not effectively followed the cases in M.C.O.P.Nos. 86 and 87 of 1985, which resulted in the passing of the ex parte decree and therefore he has been rightly proceeded by way of departmental action. .26. The Court has taken note of the submissions made by the learned Additional Advocate General, that at the time of initiation of the disciplinary proceedings, no service rules were framed and therefore Model Standing Orders Applicable to Workmen were invoked for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the appellant and that the principles of natural justice were scrupulously followed and fair opportunities were also afforded to him and the appellant was also availed the same and participated in the enquiry without raising any objection as to the applicability of the Model Standing Orders. Since the appellant has not raised any objections as to the applicability of the Model Standing Orders, at the earliest point of time and that he also participated in the enquiry and cross-examined the witnesses, this Court is of the view that no prejudice has been caused to him by applying the Model Standing Orders. 27. The next question that arise for consideration is: Whether the punishment of termination from service imposed on the appellant/writ petitioner is disproportionate to the delinquency committed by him? 28. 27. The next question that arise for consideration is: Whether the punishment of termination from service imposed on the appellant/writ petitioner is disproportionate to the delinquency committed by him? 28. It is a settled principle of law that normally the Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment; and only if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved and it shocked the conscience of the Court, even then, the Court would remit the matter to the authority and that they would not substitute the said punishment. However, the Honble Supreme Court of India in the decisions rendered in Ranjit Tahakur vs. Union of India, (1987)4 S.C.C. 611 ; B.C.Chaturvedi vs. Union of India, (1995)6 S.C.C. 749 and in Union of India vs. Ganayutham, (1997)7 S.C.C. 463 , has held that in rare situation, the Court itself can substitute its own punishment by awarding an alternative penalty. 29. In the light of the principles laid down in the above decisions, this Court is of the opinion that the quantum of punishment can be interfered in the instant case for the following reasons: i. The petitioner was originally selected as Assistant Manager (Legal)(Trainee) for one year on 27. 1983 and thereafter appointed as Assistant Manager (Legal) on 27. 1984. The summons in M.C.O.P.Nos.86 and 87 of 1985 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam were served on 16. 1985 and the testimony of M.W.1 would reveal that the papers pursuant to M.C.O.P.Nos.86 and 87 of 1985 were sent to Advocate Sadagopan on 7. 1985 to appear on 27. 1985 -the date of hearing M.W.1 further deposed that the vakalat was sent to the Advocate and he should have appeared on that date and the said Advocate has not informed about the ex parte decree which came to be passed on 4. 1986 and that the Advocate should have appeared on the hearing date. M.W.1 further deposed that in E.P. also paper publication was effected and after the transfer of the appellant on 9. 1986 till the date of attachment of the bus on 1. 1987, no steps have been taken by the Legal Department to set aside the ex parte decree. ii. M.W.1 further deposed that in E.P. also paper publication was effected and after the transfer of the appellant on 9. 1986 till the date of attachment of the bus on 1. 1987, no steps have been taken by the Legal Department to set aside the ex parte decree. ii. M.W.3, the Assistant attached to the Legal Department had deposed that without any loss of time, he prepared the necessary papers and the vakalat to be sent to Sadagopan, Advocate was made prepared on 7. 1985. He further admitted that he is a Sportsman and due to the work load and his sports activity he asked for transfer and in respect of the handling of records in M.C.O.P.Nos.86 and 87 of 1985 the department had not issued any memo to him. After the transfer of the appellant on 9. 1986 Mr.A.V.Pandian, Superintendent was put incharge of the Legal Department and he also has not taken any effective steps to set aside the ex parte decree passed in the above said M.C.O.Ps. The said official and his subordinates not only taken any steps to set aside the ex parte decree, but also allowed the execution petition to go ex parte, which resulted in the order of attachment of a bus belonging to the Corporation and that a running bus was attached on 1. 1987 and it has been published as news item in the Hindu News Daily. For release of the bus from attachment, the third respondent Corporation has satisfied the award. Therefore, more serious damage has been caused to the reputation of the third respondent Corporation due to the ex parte order of attachment passed in the Execution which came to be filed by the claimants after the transfer of the appellant on 9. 1986. Moreover, the third respondent Corporation has not taken any action against the successor of the appellant or the officials attached to the Legal Department. The said fact assumes importance because the appellant has made allegations against 4th respondent and also against his successor. iii. The successor of the appellant viz., Mr.A.V.Pandian, acted as a Management Representative in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the said vital aspects even though admissions were available in the testimonies of the Management Witnesses. iii. The successor of the appellant viz., Mr.A.V.Pandian, acted as a Management Representative in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer has not taken into consideration the said vital aspects even though admissions were available in the testimonies of the Management Witnesses. The disciplinary authority has not properly considered the explanation submitted by the appellant to the show cause notice and merely reiterated the findings of the Enquiry Officer and terminated the appellant from service by passing the impugned order. 30. The Court on a perusal of the entire materials available on record is of the opinion that the evidence in favour of the appellant discorded as regards the events that took place after the transfer of the appellant on 9. 1986 and held as if the appellant the appellant is the sole cause for the attachment of a running bus on 1. 1987. Admittedly, the appellant was not incharge of Legal Department and the Managements Representative viz., Mr.A.V.Pandian was the incharge of the Legal Department at that point of time. Therefore, for a charge of this nature, the major penalty of termination, shocks the conscience of this Court and therefore, the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is liable to be interfered with. 31. For the said reasons, the writ appeal is disposed of on the following terms:- .(a) The writ appeal is partly allowed in so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned and the finding by the disciplinary authority that the petitioner is guilty of in action between 16. 1985 and 9. 1986 is confirmed. .(b) The punishment of termination from service is set aside and it is modified as stoppage of increment for two years with cumulative effect. .(c) The appellant is liable to be reinstated forthwith, at any rate not later than the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of or production of copy of this order. .(d) The appellant is not entitled for any back-wages. But however, the service of the appellant should be treated as in continuous service, which shall accrue to his future service benefits. 32. In the result, the writ appeal is partly allowed on the above terms. But in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.