Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J By consent of both sides, the Writ Appeal was taken up for final disposal at the admission stage. 2. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No.13230/1987 dated 19. 2008 directing payment of 50% of back wages and all other retrial benefits to the Respondent as if he was in service till the date of his superannuation in 1997, State has preferred this appeal. 3. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition and Writ Appeal are as follows:- .(i) Respondent joined as Assistant Librarian on 20.8.1964 and posted to work at District Central Library, Tanjore. Thereafter, on 04. 1965 he was transferred to Aduthurai Branch Library on 26. 1966 and then transferred on 17. 1971 to Sholapuram Branch Library. While so, Respondent was placed under suspension on 12.07.1972 for the charges levelled against him. .(ii) Enquiry was conducted and the services of the Respondent was terminated on the proven charges on 12. 1974. On appeal, order of termination of service was modified as stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Again after three years, the Respondent came to adverse notice of the authorities and 55 charges were framed against him and he was placed under suspension on 112. 1978 in contemplation of taking disciplinary proceedings against him. Charge Memo containing 55 charges was issued to the Respondent on 02. 1979 and Respondent was called upon to submit his explanation to the Charge Memo. By his reply dated 22. 1979, Respondent has submitted his explanation and stated that the authority could pass orders on the basis of his explanation. The respondent did not opt for oral enquiry. (iii) Respondents explanation was considered and the same was found not satisfactory. District Library Officer has sent a communication to the respondent on 3. 1979 asking whether he is willing to avail opportunity of the enquiry in the form of direct enquiry or oral enquiry or both. The respondent has given his reply stating that he was not willing to appear for enquiry and that his explanation dated 22. 1979 itself may be treated as his explanation for the enquiry. By the order dated 13. 1979, Respondent was removed from service. As against the order of 3rd Appellant, Respondent filed an appeal before the 2nd Appellant and the same was dismissed on 29. 1979. 1979 itself may be treated as his explanation for the enquiry. By the order dated 13. 1979, Respondent was removed from service. As against the order of 3rd Appellant, Respondent filed an appeal before the 2nd Appellant and the same was dismissed on 29. 1979. Thereafter, further appeal was filed before the 1st Appellant and the same was also dismissed on 1. 1986 stating that there are no grounds for interference which was challenged in W.P.13230 of 1987. Challenging the order of dismissal of the appeal, Respondent filed W.P.No.13230/1987. 4. The Appellants resisted the writ petition contending that on account of grave irregularities committed by the Respondent during his service as Assistant Librarian, he was issued with Charge Memo containing 55 charges and as many as 44 charges were found proved and after considering the explanation of the Respondent, the authorities passed an order of dismissal from service. 5. Learned single judge allowed the writ petition holding that the procedure for imposing major penalty under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules was not followed. It was further held that there was violation of mandatory provisions of procedure contemplated under Rule 17 (b) TNCS (CCA) Rules which would vitiate the order of termination. Learned single Judge further observed that when the Respondent was charged with as many as 55 grave charges, the Appellants should have taken the matter with seriousness and ought to have strictly followed the major penalty proceedings contemplated under Rule 17 (b) of TNCS (CCA) Rules. .6. Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader submitted that Respondent who was the Assistant Librarian was then governed by Rules relating to appointment and punishment of officers and servants of Local Library Authority. It was further submitted that Employees or Local Library Authorities were provincialised and they became Government servants only by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.820 Department of Education Science and Technology dated 05. 1982 and rules of Employees of Local Library Authorities was then applicable to the Respondent. Learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that when charge memo was issued on 02. 1979 and Rule 17 (b) of TNCS (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules was not applicable. 1982 and rules of Employees of Local Library Authorities was then applicable to the Respondent. Learned Special Government Pleader would further submit that when charge memo was issued on 02. 1979 and Rule 17 (b) of TNCS (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules was not applicable. It was further submitted that in any event, Respondent himself has stated that he was not willing for enquiry and that his explanation itself may be taken as his reply and having waived the enquiry, Respondent cannot complain of violation of rules and principles of natural justice. 7. Mr.V.Seshaiyan, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that no proper enquriy was conducted for imposing major penalty of dismissal from service. It was then argued that even if the Respondent has not opted for enquiry, it was mandatory on the part of the Appellants to conduct an enquiry. It was further argued that the Respondent having been charged with grave charges, Appellants ought to have conducted an enquiry to arrive at proper conclusion and since there was violation of principles of natural justice, learned single Judge has rightly ordered 50% of back wages with other attendant benefits. 8. Since there are allegations of violation of non-compliance of procedure and violation of principles of natural justice, we have directed the Appellants to produce the File. We have carefully gone through the File. 9. As many as 55 charges were framed against the Respondent and those charges were denied by the Respondent in his written statement. Learned single Judge was of the view that charges were framed against respondent under Rule 17 (b) of TNCS (CCA) Rules. Learned single Judge further held that there was clear violation of major penalty proceedings contemplated under Rule 17 (b) of TNCS (CCA) Rules. Learned single Judge also observed that there is nothing to indicate that oral enquiry was waived by the Respondent and even if there was any such waiver, the authority ought to have conducted an enquiry. 10. Admittedly, the services of Employees of Local Library Authorities were provincialised and they were declared as Government servants only by G.O.Ms.No.820 dated 05. 1982 and only after 1982, TNCS (CCA) Rules would apply. .11. In our considered view, the learned single Judge was not right in saying that the charges were framed against the Respondent under Rule 17 (b) of TNCS (C) Rules. When the Charge memo was issued on 02. 1982 and only after 1982, TNCS (CCA) Rules would apply. .11. In our considered view, the learned single Judge was not right in saying that the charges were framed against the Respondent under Rule 17 (b) of TNCS (C) Rules. When the Charge memo was issued on 02. 1979, Respondent was working as Assistant Librarian under Local Library Authorities. Respondent was governed by the Rules relating to Local Library Authorities and not by Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. 12. Rules relating to appointment and punishment of officers and servants of Local Library Authorities also contemplate enquiry which reads as under:- "No order of dismissal, of removal, or reduction, of suspension, of recovery of the whole or a portion of a pecuniary loss caused to the Local Library Authority by negligence or breach of rules or orders shall be passed. .... unless he has been informed in writing of the grounds on which it is proposed to take action and has been afforded an adequate opportunity of defending himself. "The grounds on which it is proposed to take action shall be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges, which shall be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegation on which each charge is based and of any other circumstances which it is proposed to take into consideration in passing orders on the case. He shall be required within a reasonable time to put in a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person. If he so desired, or if the authority concerned so directs an oral enquiry shall be held. At that enquiry, oral evidence shall be heard on such of the allegations as are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross examine the witness, to give evidence in person and to have such witnesses called as he may wish, provided that the person conducting the enquiry, may, for special and sufficient reasons to be recorded in wiring refuse to call a witness. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof." 13. As per the above rules, charge memo was issued to the Respondent in R.C.No.22807/E/78 dated 02. 1979. The charges contained gist of charges and facts/documents on the basis of which charges were framed. The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and a statement of the findings and the grounds thereof." 13. As per the above rules, charge memo was issued to the Respondent in R.C.No.22807/E/78 dated 02. 1979. The charges contained gist of charges and facts/documents on the basis of which charges were framed. While issuing charge memo, Respondent was called upon to state whether he desires oral enquiry or personal hearing or both. Respondent had sent a detailed written statement dated 22. 1979 meeting the charges. While submitting his written statement/explanation, Respondent has requested the 3rd Appellant to pass orders based on his written statement. The relevant portion of written statement of Respondent dated 22. 1979 reads as under:- Language .14. As the Respondents explanation was self explanatory and he requested to pass orders on his explanation. 3rd Appellant considered all the charges in the light of respondents explanation. Detailed findings of the 3rd Appellant on each of the charges was sent to the Respondent in Na.Ka.No.22807/C/78 dated 3. 1979 calling upon him to respond/submit his reply. In the said Proceedings dated 3. 1979, Respondent was also informed whether he prefers an oral enquiry or personal hearing or both. Respondent was also informed that he could inspect the documents. The relevant portion of Proceedings dated 3. 1979 reads as under:- Language 15. We have carefully gone through the findings of the 3rd Appellant. Referring to the explanation of the Respondent for each charge, 3rd Appellant has recorded his finding as against each charge. After so recording the findings against each charge, by the said Proceedings dated 03. 1979, Respondent was given further opportunity to submit his reply and whether he prefers an enquiry. In response to the Proceedings dated 3. 1979, Respondent had submitted his explanation dated 13. 1979 requesting the 3rd Appellant to pass orders on the basis of his explanation. His explanation reads as under; .Language .16. Since the Respondent has not opted for oral enquiry, upon consideration of his explanation and reply, final orders was passed by dismissing him from service by the Proceedings Na.Ka.No.22807/C/78 dated 13. 1979. By perusal of the File, we are convinced that the procedure contemplated under the rules relating to appointment and punishment of Officers and Servants of Local Library Authorities was duly followed. 1979. By perusal of the File, we are convinced that the procedure contemplated under the rules relating to appointment and punishment of Officers and Servants of Local Library Authorities was duly followed. As an employee of Local Library Authorities, when the Respondent was governed by the rules relating to Local Library Authorities, Respondent cannot complain of noncompliance of rule 17 (b) of TNCS (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules. 17. Of course, in the counter-affidavit filed by the Appellants in W.P.No.13230/1987, they have not mentioned about the rules of Local Library Authorities applicable to the Respondent. Counter-affidavit is said to have been filed by the Appellants before the Administrative Tribunal in or about June 1991. By the time the counter was filed, the service of employees of Local Library Authorities was provincialised by G.O.Ms.No.820 dated 5. 1982 and therefore, omission to refer to the rules of Local Library Authorities applicable to the Respondent might be due to inadvertence on the part of the Appellants. 18. Learned counsel for the Respondent placed reliance upon 1991 (1) LLN 613 [Delhi Transport Corporation v. Delhi Transport Corporation Mazdoor Congress and others]. Delhi Transport Corporations Regulation conferring power of termination of service of confirmed and permanent employees by giving one months notice or pay in lieu of there of without assigning any reasons was challenged as contrary to Article 311 of Constitution. In that context, Supreme Court held that Management cannot have unrestricted and unqualified power of terminating services of its employees. In the instant case, Respondent has not challenged the rules relating to employees of Local Library Authorities. Inspite of opportunities, Respondent had not availed the opportunity given to him opting for enquiry. 19. Learned counsel for the Respondent also relied upon another decision (1993) 3 SCC 259 [D.K.Yadav v. J.M.A.Industries Limited]. In the said case, it was held that Standing Orders would have statutory force and when there was non-compliance of Standing Orders, it would have effect of vitiating the termination order. We are of the considered view that in the facts and circumstances of this case the above said decisions are not applicable. Having waived the oral enquiry/personal hearing, it is not open to the Respondent to complain of violation of principles of natural justice. .20. Principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Having waived the oral enquiry/personal hearing, it is not open to the Respondent to complain of violation of principles of natural justice. .20. Principles of natural justice cannot be put in a straight jacket formula and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. To say that the Authorities ought to have conducted an enquiry even though the Respondent has not opted for oral enquiry would amount to unnatural expansion of natural justice without reference to the administrative realities and other factors. 21. There is clear distinction when there was no hearing at all and the cases where mere technical infringement of the rules. The Court applies principles of natural justice having regard to the fact situation obtaining in each case [See (2006) 8 SCC 776 (P.D.Agrawal v. State Bank of India and others)]. In the case in hand, the Respondent submitted a detailed explanation meeting the charges and in his reply dated 22. 1979 and 13. 1979 the Respondent stated that his explanation may be treated as his stand and orders be passed. When the respondent did not opt for an oral enquiry now he cannot turn round and contend that no opportunity was given to him. 22. The learned single Judge was not right in quashing the order of dismissal. When the Respondent has not opted for oral enquiry, it is not as if the Respondent had a clear record. As we pointed out earlier, already in 1974, Respondent was terminated from service which was later modified. As many as 55 charges were framed against the Respondent and as many as 44 charges were found proved including misappropriation. The proved charges were grave, while so, learned single Judge was not right in setting aside the order of termination with a direction to pay 50% back wages and other attendant benefits. Upon consideration of facts and circumstances and grave charges leveled against the Respondent, in our considered view, the order of learned single Judge cannot be sustained. 23. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.