JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner was appointed as a Cook by the second respondent in the Adidravidar Welfare Hostel in August 1990. Later he was promoted as Office Assistant. While so, he was issued with a charge memo dated 27.03.1998 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. Four charges were framed against the petitioner which are as follows: 1) He utilised two students studying in the hostel for his house hold work. 2) He assaulted a student in front of the warden of the hostel 3) He abused the warden 4) He did not give food to the students in night on many occasions. 2. The Special Tahsildar (Adi-dravidar Welfare), Coimbatore was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. He submitted a report dated 06.12.1998 wherein he has held that the second and third charges were not proved. He did not give any finding regarding the fourth charge, however, in respect of the first charge, he has held that there was possibility of the petitioner asking the students to do the domestic work. The enquiry report was furnished to the petitioner on 3.5.2001 after three years and he was asked to give his comments thereafter. He gave his comments on 8.5.2001. Subsequently, the impugned order was passed by the second respondent on 12.6.2001 demoting the petitioner from Office Assistant to Cook without giving an opportunity to the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition in W.P.No.4422 of 2007 to quash the impugned order of the second respondent dated 12.06.2001. The respondent filed a counter affidavit refuting the allegation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2010 (13) SCC 494 (Punjab National Bank and Others v. K.K.Verma). As per the said judgment, the second respondent ought to have heard the petitioner on his disagreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer but the same was not done. 4. Learned Government Advocate seeks to sustain the impugned order based on the counter affidavit. 5. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 6. The petitioner was employed as a Cook in the year 1990. Subsequently, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo dated 27.3.1998 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 5. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 6. The petitioner was employed as a Cook in the year 1990. Subsequently, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge memo dated 27.3.1998 under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. An enquiry was conducted by the Special Tahsildar, Coimbatore on the charges levelled against the petitioner. The Special Tahsildar, submitted his report dated 6.10.1998 holding that the second and third charges are not proved. He did not render any finding on the fourth charge. As far as the first charge is concerned, he recorded the finding that there is possibility of the petitioner asking the students to do the domestic work. While so, the impugned order was passed by the second respondent straightaway disagreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, without hearing the petitioner. The same is opposed to the decision of the Apex Court reported in 2010 (13) SCC 494 (Punjab National Bank and Others v. K.K.Verma) and the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment reads as follows: 30. This being the position, in the instant case it is clear that the appellant had not followed their own Regulations which clearly require the disciplinary authority to record the reasons where it differed from the enquiry officer. The Regulations also clearly lay down that a copy of the enquiry report and the order of disagreement are to be provided to the employee. In the present case, we are concerned with the state where the disciplinary authority differs with the enquiry officer on his findings. This is prior to arriving at the guilt of the employee. His right to receive the report and defend at that stage before the guilt is established is very much recognised as seen above. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the Constitution bench has held in Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel that after the 42nd Amendment, the employees are not entitled in law to be heard in the matter of penalty. 34. It was then submitted that non-supply of enquiry report is inconsequential if the employee does not show as to how he is prejudiced thereby. Karunakar, S.K.Singh v Central Bank of India and Haryana Finacial Corpn. v. Kailash chandra Ahujawere relied upon in support. There cannot be any grievance with respect to the proposition. 34. It was then submitted that non-supply of enquiry report is inconsequential if the employee does not show as to how he is prejudiced thereby. Karunakar, S.K.Singh v Central Bank of India and Haryana Finacial Corpn. v. Kailash chandra Ahujawere relied upon in support. There cannot be any grievance with respect to the proposition. In the present case, however, we are concerned with a situation where the finding of the enquiry officer on a charge has been reversed by the disciplinary authority, which was not the case in any of the three cases. Besides, by not giving the enquiry report and the adverse order of the disciplinary authority, the respondent was denied the opportunity to represent before the find of guilt was arrived at and thereby he was certainly prejudiced." 7. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court as referred to above, the impugned order dated 12.06.2011 is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. No costs.