Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking for the relief of quashing the proceedings of the first respondent dated 12.12.2001 in Proceeding No. No.1256/D-3/308/99-7, confirming the order of dismissal in Ku.A.No.Ku.Tha.Po/Thi.Mi.Pa/Thi.Gal/Ni.Pi.3/Nii.2/Ko.Tha/A.No.713-5/2001 dated 27.8.2001 passed by the 2nd respondent and consequential direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service, backwages and all attendant and consequential benefits. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner joined the 1st respondent Board on 16.5.1971 as Temporary Casual Labour (TCL) and thereafter he was made permanent on 1.1.1977 as helper. The petitioner was subsequently promoted as Assistant Draughtsman on 31.3.1978 and worked in the said capacity from 21.1.1981 till 29.10.1992. The petitioner was promoted as Junior Electrical Engineer Grade II and worked in sub-station and finally he was promoted and appointed as Junior Electrical Engineer Grade I in Electricity Distribution Circle on 7.2.1997, as per the appointment made by the 1st respondent. The petitioner has rendered unblemished record of service for about 30 years. While so, he was issued with a charge memo by the Executive Engineer, the 5th respondent herein, alleging several violations as per the memo dated 8.7.1997. The petitioner has given a detailed reply and explanation dated 17.11.1997. However, the 4th respondent vide memo dated 15/22.12.1997, framed 15 charges against the petitioner. The petitioner gave a reply on 29.1.1998. 3. Again four charges were added and the said charges have been made on the basis of the complaint of certain consumers. But, the petitioner was not furnished with any such copies of complaint or even a statement along with the charge memo. Originally only 11 charges have been mentioned and again without considering the explanation offered by the petitioner, the said four charges have been added and an enquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice. The order of termination was passed by the 3rd respondent, who is not the appointing authority as it is only the 1st respondent is the appointing authority. Against such order of dismissal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent dismissed the said appeal dated 12.9.2001 vide its order dated 12.12.2001. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking for the above said relief. 4. Mr. Against such order of dismissal from service, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the 2nd respondent. But the 2nd respondent dismissed the said appeal dated 12.9.2001 vide its order dated 12.12.2001. Being aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner has come forward with the present writ petition seeking for the above said relief. 4. Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the 3rd respondent namely the disciplinary authority has placed reliance on the documents, which were not furnished to the petitioner and also placed reliance on the statements recorded from certain witnesses behind the back of the petitioner and as such, the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that even the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent without considering the grounds raised and without application of independent mind in a casual manner. It is pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the main grounds urged in the appeal were not at all adverted to by the appellate authority and the appellate authority after incorporating the charges and after mentioning the explanation given by the petitioner, merely observed that the contentions of the petitioner cannot be accepted. Therefore, it is submitted that both the authorities have not followed the established fair procedure while conducting the enquiry and while considering the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel in support of his contentions, placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal and Others v. Kharak Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 236 . 5. Per contra, Mr. M. Vaidyanathan, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 5 would contend that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned orders passed by the respondents 2 & 3. It is contended that both the authorities followed fair procedure by affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to put forward his case. The learned Standing Counsel would proceed to contend that the Appellate Authority also perused the entire materials and considered the charges and as well as the explanation offered by the petitioner and thereafter by assigning reasons, passed the impugned orders. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has also filed a counter before this Court. 6. The learned Standing Counsel would proceed to contend that the Appellate Authority also perused the entire materials and considered the charges and as well as the explanation offered by the petitioner and thereafter by assigning reasons, passed the impugned orders. It is submitted that the 4th respondent has also filed a counter before this Court. 6. Though the 6th respondent was subsequently impleaded as per the order of this Court and inspite of serving notice on him, neither he has appeared before the Court nor represented by any counsel. The name of the 6th respondent was also printed in the cause list, but even then there is no representation for the 6th respondent. 7. This Court carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned orders passed by the 2nd & 3rd respondents. 8. The fact remains that 15 charges have been framed against the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that initially 11 charges were framed and thereafter, 4 charges were added and ultimately on enquiry, except Charge No.14, all the other charges held to have been proved. The perusal of the affidavit of the petitioner and as well as the counter filed by the respondents discloses that the petitioner has come forward with a definite and specific allegations to the effect that the documents relied by the enquiring authority were not furnished to him and on the other hand, it is seen in the counter that the respondents have come forward with bald and vague reply to the effect that the petitioner never sought for those documents. 9. It is well settled that any enquiry should be conducted in a fair manner and in accordance with law and if there is any documents, which are against the delinquent, the said documents should be furnished to the delinquent officer. It is not disputed that the authorities placed reliance on the statements recorded from Velluswamy and Chinnadurai and other office files, but the said documents relied by the disciplinary authority have not at all being furnished to the delinquent officer. It is seen that the above said statements recorded behind the back of the petitioner have been relied by the disciplinary authority which amounts to flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. It is seen that the above said statements recorded behind the back of the petitioner have been relied by the disciplinary authority which amounts to flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. 10. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India v. P.C. Jain reported in AIR 1969 SC 983 , held that, “The principle that a fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held that statements made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive evidence, is one of the basic principles which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of procedure contained in the Evidence Act.” 11. In yet another decision in Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1997 (1) SCC 299 , the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “The preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after the issue of the charge-sheet. The former action would be to find whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. After full-fledged enquiry was held, the preliminary enquiry had lost its importance.” 12. In Aravamudha Aiyangar v. Commissioner of Police, Madras reported in 1979 L.W. 428, this Court held that “It is beyond question that departmental or disciplinary proceedings into the conduct of Government servants are not governed by rules of evidence. The Evidence Act is no applicable to them. They are not required to follow the pattern of proceedings in Court. But they should conform to the basic principles is that a statement taken behind the back of an alleged delinquent cannot be used against him.” 13. The Evidence Act is no applicable to them. They are not required to follow the pattern of proceedings in Court. But they should conform to the basic principles is that a statement taken behind the back of an alleged delinquent cannot be used against him.” 13. In an unreported order in W.P.No.8071 of 2005 dated 14.3.2005, a Division Bench of this Court after referring the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Central Bank of India v. P.C. Jain ( AIR 1969 SC 983 ) held that, “The Tribunal followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Central Bank of India v. P.C. Jain ( AIR 1969 SC 983 ), wherein it was held that “the principle that a fact sough to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held that statements made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive evidence, is one of the basic principles which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic tribunals are not bound by the technical rules of procedure contained in the evidence Act.” What was held to be impermissible in the above referred to judgment, is shown to have been acted upon by the Enquiry Officer, whose report holding that the charge is proved had been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. At the risk of repetition, we state that except the statement of Palanisamy, there is no other evidence before the Enquiry Officer for him to conclude that the charge is proved. There is also nothing on record to show, who recorded the statement of Palanisamy and whether it was done in the presence of the delinquent or not.” 14. In an another unreported order in W.P.Nos.29862 & 32581 of 2002 dated 22.2.2005 another Division Bench of this Court held that, “6………. It is not in dispute that all the prosecution witnesses except P.W.3, who is none other than the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the other witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1, 2, 4 & 5 turned hostile before the Enquiry Officer and not supported their earlier statement made at the preliminary enquiry. It is not in dispute that all the prosecution witnesses except P.W.3, who is none other than the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the other witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1, 2, 4 & 5 turned hostile before the Enquiry Officer and not supported their earlier statement made at the preliminary enquiry. The Enquiry Officer having noted the above aspect charges levelled against them are proved based on the preliminary enquiry.” The Division Bench in that order further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Narayan Dattatraya Ramteerthakhar v. State of Maharashtra reported in 1997 (1) SCC 299 and held that, “7. ……. It is further held that the preliminary enquiry has nothing to do with the enquiry conducted after the issuance of the charge sheet. According to them, the former action would be to find whether disciplinary enquiry should be initiated against the delinquent. Their Lordships have concluded that after full-fledged enquiry was held, the preliminary enquiry had lost its importance. 8. In our case, we have already referred to the fact that the prosecution witnesses, viz., P.Ws.1, 2, 4 and 5 turned hostile and not supported their preliminary version. However, the Enquiry Officer basing reliance on their earlier statement in the preliminary enquiry found that all the charges leveled against them are proved. In the light of the decision of the Supreme Court referred to above, after full-fledged enquiry was held the preliminary enquiry had lost its importance.” 15. It is also relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Uttaranchal and Others v. Kharak Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 236 , as rightly relied by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held hereunder: “15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge: (i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject-matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the enquiry officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the enquiry officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charges and given an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the disciplinary/punishing authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the enquiry officer to enable him to offer his views, if any. 16. The above said principle laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court would squarely applicable to the facts of the instant case as in this case also admittedly, certain statements recorded from witnesses behind the back of the petitioner have been placed reliance apart from relying on certain documents which were not served by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner and as such, it is crystal clear that the impugned orders are passed in flagrant violation of the principles of natural justice. In view of the same, this Court is constrained to set aside the order dated 12.12.2001 passed by first respondent in proceeding No.1256/D-3/308/99-7 and also the order of dismissal passed by the 2nd respondent dated 27.8.2001 in Proceedings No. Ku.A.No.Ku.Tha.Po/Thi.Mi.Pa/Thi.Gal/Ni.Pi.3/Nii.2/Ko.Tha/A.No.713-5/2001. 11. In view of the admitted fact that the petitioner had already reached the age of superannuation on 31.12.2008, the 3rd respondent shall conduct enquiry afresh by affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner and by furnishing all the documents which were going to be relied by the authorities concerned. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that the said exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall give full cooperation for completion of the enquiry within the stipulated time as mentioned above. It is also made clear that if the enquiry is not completed within the stipulated period of four months and if there is no fault on the side of the petitioner, the disciplinary proceedings shall deemed to have been dropped.