Judgment :- The Original Application in O.A.No.1502 of 2002 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal is the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was a Noon Meal Organiser in Adi Dravidar Welfare School, Pulianthope, Chennai. While so, the second respondent issued a charge memo dated 011. 2001, making the following allegations: "1. 10.08.2001 md;W gUg;g[ Fiwthfg; gad;gLj;jg;gl;L rhk;ghh; btWk; jz;zPuhf ,Ue;jJ cg;g [ g[sp kpsfha; J}s; VJk; nrh;f;fg;gltpy;iy. 2. 13.08.2001 md;W mikg;ghsh; fhyjhkjkhf gs;spf;F te;jjhy; miwapd; g{l;L cilf;fg;gl;lJ. 3. 14.08.2001 md;W rj;Jzt[ fhyjhkjkhf tH;fg;gl;lJ rhk;ghhpy; cg;g[ Fiwthf ,Ue;jJ. 4. 27.08.2001 md;W gUg;g[ kjpa cztpy; nghltpy;iy. gUg;g[ ,Ug;g[ ,y;iy. 5. 15.08.2001, 22.08.2001, 25.08.2001, 26.08.2001 Mfpa tpLKiw ehl;fspy; 5-9 taJ tuk;g [ gahspfSf;F Kd;jpdk; rj;Jzt[ tH;fg;gltpy;iy. Mdhy; mikg;ghsh; czt[ tH;fg;gl;ljhf fzf;F vGjpa [s;shh;. 12.09.2001 md;W rj;Jzt[[ ikaj;jpy; gUg;g[ ,Ug;g[ 372 910 fp fp Fiwt[ fz;lwpag;gl;lJ mjw;fhd jz;lj;bjhif U.10,558/- MFk;". 3. The petitioner submitted her explanation on 112. 2001, denying the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Educational Officer, Education Department, Corporation of Chennai, the second respondent herein. The petitioner states that the enquiry was conducted in violations of principles of natural justice and the witnesses were not examined in her presence and she was not permitted to cross examine the witnesses. It is further stated that without furnishing the enquiry report, the petitioner was straight away dismissed from service, by the first respondent, by an order dated 04.03.2002. 4. The petitioner filed an Original Application in O.A.No.1502 of 2002 (W.P.No.7528 of 2007) to quash the said order dated 04.03.2002 of the first respondent and for a consequential direction, to reinstate her in service with all attendant benefits. 5. Heard Mr.P.Manoj Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs.C.K.Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents. 6. On 010. 2009, this Court directed the respondents to produce the entire records. Accordingly, the records were produced by the learned Additional Government Pleader and I have perused the entire records. 7. From the records, it is seen that the witnesses were examined separately and not in the presence of the petitioner. The Noon Meal Organiser, the Headmaster, the Watchman and another Noon Meal Organiser were examined on different dates and when they were examined, the petitioner was not present. Hence, such a procedure is violative of principles of natural justice. The witnesses ought to have been examined in the presence of the delinquent. The Noon Meal Organiser, the Headmaster, the Watchman and another Noon Meal Organiser were examined on different dates and when they were examined, the petitioner was not present. Hence, such a procedure is violative of principles of natural justice. The witnesses ought to have been examined in the presence of the delinquent. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner was not thus given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. Hence, it goes to the root of the matter and the dismissal order is thus vitiated. 8. Further, I have perused the files and find out that the findings were not recorded. Therefore, naturally no findings were furnished to the petitioner. Whenever, the disciplinary authority directs a different authority to hold an enquiry, the enquiry authority is bound to give his findings, on the charges. Here, it was not done. After getting the findings from the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority is bound to furnish a copy of the same and to obtain the views of the delinquent thereon. Since no findings were recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority straight away passed the dismissal order. Even the dismissal order is a cryptic one and there is no discussion in the dismissal order, as to how the charges were established. 9. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all benefits. However, it does not preclude the respondents to conduct a fresh enquiry, giving opportunity to the petitioner. 10. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs.