Judgment :- R. Banumathi, J. This Writ Appeal arises out of order in W.P.No.6572 of 1991 dismissing the Petition filed by the Appellant and declining to quash the order imposing punishment of dismissal from service. 2. Brief facts which led to the filing of Writ Petition and Appeal are as follows: (i) The Appellant joined the Respondent Management as Warehouse Manager Grade I on 6.12.1964. He was promoted as Regional Manager with effect from 4.9.1982. When he was working as Regional Manager at Tiruchi, he was served with a charge memo dated 21.7.1988. In the said memo, 16 specific charges were framed under Regulation 14(2) of Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation General and Staff Regulations, 1965 for various irregularities committed by the Appellant relating to the misuse of his official power and receipt of illegal gratification. The additional Charge No.17 was also framed against the petitioner for abusing his powers to draw without confirmation to the financial discipline. Based on the report of Vigilance Officer -one Kadirvelu, the Appellant was also subsequently placed under suspension by an order dated 19.8.1988. As against the said Order, the Appellant filed suit before Sub-Court, Tiruchy and the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn on 23.12.1988. On representation by the Appellant, the Management cancelled the suspension order and reinstated him in service, pending disposal of the disciplinary action already taken against him. Appellant was furnished with copies of the reference, which form the basis of the charges on 11.7.1989. The Appellant requested for copies of the report of the Vigilance Officer and sought one month time to submit his explanation. Again, by letter dated 28.8.1989, the Appellant requested for copies of some other documents. Even though Appellant asked about the details of the documents, he did not file any reply. (ii) On 22.2.1990, one Mr.Parthasarathy, Assistant Manager -Technical was appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct an enquiry with regard to the charges framed against the Appellant and to file a report. The Appellant was directed to submit his explanation before the Enquiry Officer by letter dated 30.6.1990. Till then, Appellant did not choose to offer any explanation to the charge memo dated 21.7.1988. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and after enquiry was over, he submitted his report on 23.8.1990. The Appellant was directed to submit his explanation before the Enquiry Officer by letter dated 30.6.1990. Till then, Appellant did not choose to offer any explanation to the charge memo dated 21.7.1988. Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry and after enquiry was over, he submitted his report on 23.8.1990. On consideration of the enquiry report and other materials as well as the statement by the Appellant before the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report that out of 17 Charges framed, Charge Nos.1(iv) and 7 were not pressed, whereas the disciplinary authority held that those charges were also proved. Likewise, the Enquiry Officer found that Charge Nos.1(iii), 1(v) and 16 were not proved, whereas the disciplinary authority held that those charges were also proved. Report of Enquiry Officer was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellant was dismissed from service of Respondent Corporation. The Appellant filed an Appeal before Executive Committee of Respondent Corporation on 13.11.1990. After consideration of the representation in the Appeal Memorandum, the Executive Committee dismissed the Appeal on 6.12.1990 confirming dismissal order by holding that the charges have been proved and the Appellant deserves to be dismissed. The dismissal order was challenged in W.P.No.6572 of 1991. Holding that on the basis of sufficient evidence the disciplinary authority and appellate authority have arrived at the conclusion and that Court cannot embark upon scrutiny and circumstances and reassess the same, the learned single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition, which is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for Appellant Mr.A.Kothandaraman firstly contended that proper opportunity was not given to the Appellant and Appellants request for examination of his defence witnesses was refused. It was also contended that the Appellant was not given sufficient opportunity to peruse the documents nor opportunities were afforded to him to effectively put forth his defence. 4. Taking us through the enquiry officers report, learned counsel for Respondent Corporation submitted that before the Enquiry Officer, Appellant had given his statement and statements of prosecution witnesses were also recorded and the witnesses confirmed their statements and on being asked, Appellant did not chose to cross examine any witnesses and specifically stated that he did not want to cross examine any one except Parthasarathy. It was contended that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the Appellant and a detailed enquiry was conducted adhering to principles of natural justice and there is no basis for the grievance made by the Appellant. Charge memo was issued to the Appellant and the Appellant has requested for certain documents, which according to the Respondents, are irrelevant to the charges. The Respondent directed the Appellant to satisfy the records which were actually enquired along with particular reference number, date and subject matter and again the Appellant sent his letter dated 22.6.1990 without mentioning the required particulars. Without giving relevant particulars of documents, it is not open to the Appellant to contend that the relevant documents were not furnished to him. 5. Learned counsel for the Appellant nextly contended that the Appellant was not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. As pointed out by the Enquiry Officer, Appellant did not submit his reply for the charge memo, but instead he gave letter requesting for certain documents to submit his reply and the charge memo. Inspite of direction, the Appellant has not chosen to give particulars of the documents. The Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry on 24.7.1990 and 25.7.1990. By perusal of report of Enquiry Officer, it is seen that as many as eleven witnesses turned up for enquiry and about 7 witnesses did not attend the enquiry. The Appellant did not cross examine prosecution witnesses who attended the enquiry. On the other hand, the Appellant requested the Enquiry Officer that he may be permitted to cross examine Mr.T,.M.Kadirvelu, the then Vigilance Officer, Mr.A.Panneerselvam, the then Public Relation Officer, Mr.A.Manivasagam, Manager, Administration, Head Office, Mr.M.Katchapalayam, Warehouse Manager, Kancheepuram, Mr.R.Seenichamy, Deputy Warehouse Manager, Dindigul, Mr.P.Subramaniam, Watchman, Dindigul, Mr.A.Marimuthu, Attender, Thanjavur, Mr.Murugaiah, Watchman, Mr.Shanmugasundaram, Basic Servant, Tanjore, Mr.S.Balasubramaniam, Driver and Mr.R.Gnanaprakasam,Warehouse Manager, Salem of Respondent Corporation. The Appellant did not state as to why he wanted to cross examine the above witnesses. As pointed out by the Enquiry Officer, question of cross examination of the above witnesses does not arise as the said witnesses given by the Appellant were not inquired at the preliminary enquiry. If at all examination of those witnesses was relevant, it was the responsibility of the Appellant to disprove the charges by examining his own witnesses. As pointed out by the Enquiry Officer, question of cross examination of the above witnesses does not arise as the said witnesses given by the Appellant were not inquired at the preliminary enquiry. If at all examination of those witnesses was relevant, it was the responsibility of the Appellant to disprove the charges by examining his own witnesses. The Appellant did not even submit his written explanation to the charges levelled against him and while so it is not open to the Appellant to contend that he was not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses. 6. As a disciplinary authority, Chairman of the Board has passed the order imposing punishment of dismissal from service. In the appeal preferred by the Appellant, Executive Committee considered the materials and applying its mind about the adequacy or otherwise of the punishment, passed the order confirming punishment of dismissal from service. The learned counsel for Appellant contended that as the disciplinary authority – the Chairman of the Board has passed the order imposing punishment of dismissal from service and both the disciplinary authority and the Appellate Authority, being the Chairman of Respondent Corporation, it would vitiate the punishment imposed upon the Appellant. 7. Rule 4 of Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation General and Staff Regulations deals with meeting of the Board and the Executive Committee. As per the Regulations, the Executive Committee consist of Directors/ Members. The questions at meeting of Executive Committee shall be decided by a majority of votes. As per Clause 6(b), quorum for a meeting of the Board of the Executive Committee shall be 1/3rd of the total strength or two Directors, which ever is higher. By perusal of the proceedings of the Appellate Authority, it is seen that the Executive Committee comprised of Joint Director, TNCSC, Joint Director, Finance (BPE) Department and C.W.C. Nominee. In the resolution passed by the Appellate Committee, the Executive Committee has clearly stated that it applied its mind about the adequacy or otherwise of the punishment imposed on the Appellant and found that considering the proved charges relating to various charges of misuse of official power and receipt of illegal gratification the punishment imposed by the competent authority was not excessive. The proceedings of the Executive Committee dated 6.12.1990 pointed out by the learned counsel for Appellant, even though signed by Mr.M.Ahamed, I.A.S., Chairman, it was for and on behalf of the Executive Committee. The proceedings of the Executive Committee dated 6.12.1990 pointed out by the learned counsel for Appellant, even though signed by Mr.M.Ahamed, I.A.S., Chairman, it was for and on behalf of the Executive Committee. In other words, the above proceeding was signed by the Chairman only as a Proceeding communicating the order of the Executive Committee. Learned counsel for Respondent submitted that the Chairman-cum-Managing Director did not participate in the meeting of Executive Committee and that he only communicated the order/resolution passed by the Executive Committee by the proceedings. We do not find any merit in the contention of the Appellant that the Chairman of the Board functioned both as a disciplinary authority as well as the Appellate authority. 8. After the punishment was confirmed by Appellate Authority, the Appellant preferred review petition dated 10.10.1991. He has also raised additional grounds in the review petition on 24.11.1991. The review petition was dismissed on the ground that no further revision could be entertained. The Board agreed with the views of Chairman-cum-Managing Director and it resolved not to entertain revision submitted by the Appellant to the Board. 9. Mr.J.T.Acharyulu, I.A.S., has sent D.O.letter dated 23.3.1992 stating that the Board has inherent powers to review the decision taken by the Executive Committee and that it can either change or modify the decision suitably and that resolution of the Board does not reflect Mr.Acharyulus views. In the said D.O.letter, Mr.Acharyulu has also stated that the punishment imposed appears to be very harsh and excessive and ends of justice would have been met if the punishment imposed is other than dismissal and that the punishment could have been modified to other than dismissal. Laying emphasis upon the said D.O.letter by Mr.Acharyulu, the learned counsel for Appellant contended that as such there was no unanimity with the members of the Board and that Executive Committee without application of mind agreed with the views of the Chairman. There is no substance in the above contention. As pointed out earlier, after considering evidence and materials, the Executive Committee applied its mind and confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of dismissal from service. The said D.O.letter of Mr.Acharyulu was only in respect of the review petition filed by the Appellant and it was only expressing his different views, which, in our considered view, would not in any way affect the punishment imposed on the Appellant. 10. The said D.O.letter of Mr.Acharyulu was only in respect of the review petition filed by the Appellant and it was only expressing his different views, which, in our considered view, would not in any way affect the punishment imposed on the Appellant. 10. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that copies of Enquiry Officers report was not furnished to the Appellant along with order of disciplinary authority imposing punishment of dismissal from service and non-supply of report of the Enquiry Officer to the Appellant would be violative of principles of natural justice. In Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588 , the Supreme Court held that when the inquiring authority and the disciplinary authority are not one and the same and the disciplinary authority appoints an inquiring authority to inquire into charges levelled against a delinquent officer who holds inquiry, finds him guilty and submits a report to that effect to the disciplinary authority, a copy of such report is required to be supplied by the disciplinary authority to the delinquent employee before an order of punishment is imposed on him. It was also held that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer to a delinquent employee would be violative of principles of natural justice. The Court observed that after the Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976, second opportunity contemplated by Article 311(2) of the Constitution had been abolished, but principles of natural justice and fair play required supply of adverse material to the delinquent who was likely to be affected by such material. Non-supply of report of the inquiry officer to the delinquent would constitute infringement of the doctrine of natural justice. In B. Karunakar case (1994 AIR SCW 1050) a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was called upon to consider the effect of non-supply of the inquiry officer’s report to the delinquent. 11. Insofar as supply of report of Enquiry Officer is concerned, Constitutional Bench has held that Court has to consider whether prejudice has been caused to the employee or not. The effect of non-supply of the report has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. 11. Insofar as supply of report of Enquiry Officer is concerned, Constitutional Bench has held that Court has to consider whether prejudice has been caused to the employee or not. The effect of non-supply of the report has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. From the ratio laid down in B.Karunakars case, it is clear that the failure of supply of report of Enquiry Officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in proceedings being declared as invalid and order of punishment is vitiated and ineffective. It is for the delinquent to plead and prove that non-supply of such report has caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. In the case on hand, the Appellant has not pleaded and established that non-supply of report has caused prejudice to him resulting in miscarriage of justice. 12. Contending that Clause 14(1) - Procedure to be followed in imposing penalties of Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation General and Staff Regulations is akin to Rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that after the enquiry has been completed, the competent authority before imposing penalty ought to have issued a second show cause notice and non-issuance of second show cause notice is violative of principles of natural justice and the service rules. Even though Clause 14(1) deals with the procedure to be followed in imposing penalties, Rule does not make it mandatory that the disciplinary authority has to issue a second show cause notice, as seen from Rule 14(2)(b) which reads as follows: "After the enquiry or personal hearing referred to in clause (a) has been completed and if the authority competent to impose penalty mentioned in that clause is of the opinion on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry that any of the penalties specified therein shall be imposed on the employee, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the person charged any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed." (underlining added) As per the Staff Regulations, it is not necessary to give the persons charged any opportunity of making representation when penalty was proposed to be imposed. There is no substance in the grievance of the Appellant as to the violation of principles of natural justice on account of non-issuance of second show cause notice. 13. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that as against the charges, which were not pressed, and not proved, when the disciplinary authority has taken a different view holding the charges as proved the disciplinary authority ought to have issued a show cause notice giving reasons for taking such a different view and non-issuance of any such show cause notice for the above charges has caused serious prejudice to the Appellant. Of course, we have noticed that as against Charges 1(iii), 1(v) and 16, the Enquiry Officer though found Charges were not proved or not pressed, disciplinary authority has held those charges as proved. It would have been in order if a further notice was issued to the Appellant. But in our considered view, no serious prejudice would have been caused to the Appellant because of non-issuance of further show cause notice since the other proved charges are grave in nature i.e., misuse of official position, receipt of illegal gratification, etc. 14. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, High Court is not an appellate Court over the decision of the authorities holding a Departmental Enquiry against a public servant. Only if a finding of fact is based on no evidence it would be regarded as an error of law, which can be corrected by a Writ of Certiorari. The learned single Judge pointing out that the jurisdiction of High Court is very limited, especially, when both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority have arrived at the conclusion based on sufficient evidence, the learned single Judge has dismissed the Writ petition. We are of the view that none of the points raised by the Appellant merit acceptance and the writ appeal is liable to be dismissed. 15. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.