Judgment :- 1. Heard Mr.G.Muthukrishanan, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr.M.Dig Vijaya Pandian, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Ms.J.Anandavalli, learned counsel for respondents 6 and 7. 2. Challenging the charge memo issued by the Chief Educational Officer, 4th respondent herein in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.8526/A2/2006 dated 07.12.2006; subsequent proceedings of the Joint Director, the 3rd respondent herein vide proceedings in Na.Ka.No.045113/W3/E3/2007 dated 02.11.2007; subsequent and consequential order passed by the Joint Director, the 3rd respondent in his proceedings in Na.Ka.No.045113/W3/E3/07 dated 31.12.2007 and the final order passed by the Director of School Education, the 2nd respondent herein vide his proceedings Na.Ka.No.04113/W3/E3/07, dated 06.03.2008 and seeking to quash the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. Facts of the case as put forth by the petitioner would run thus: 3.1. The petitioner is a Post Graduate Teacher. She passed M.Ed. in 1988 and M.Phil. in April 1990 and was selected by the Teachers Recruitment Board and appointed as Post Graduate Teacher in Tamil by the proceedings of the Joint Director of School Education. She filed Contempt Application No.274 of 2007 in which notice was ordered to the respondent and after that, the respondent herein complied with the order passed by this court in W.P.No.18326 of 2006. Even though the said order was passed by the respondent on 05.04.2007, the entire arrears of bill was paid in October 2007 only. 3.2. According to the petitioner, she has rendered more than 20 years of dedicated service and that the Department could not pinpoint any omission during her entire service. But, the situation at Government Higher Secondary School, Nattalam, where now she is working is a bitter one. The Headmistress, Mrs.R.Evelin Pramila and one of her close relatives N.Subanandaraj, a P.G. Teacher gave troubles to the petitioner by misuse of official powers taking advantage of the animosity the Department has against her. 3.3. While so, on 22.06.2006, the petitioner attended the school and signed the Master Register kept in the school for registering the attendance of Teachers and she signed the same in the forenoon as well as in the afternoon. As per the practice prevailing in the Higher Secondary School, the Teacher attending the school has to sign in the Register both in the forenoon and afternoon. As per the practice prevailing in the Higher Secondary School, the Teacher attending the school has to sign in the Register both in the forenoon and afternoon. There is a register called Work Done Register, wherein each and every Teacher who conducts classes will have to put their initial. The petitioner would submit that she had put her initial in the Work Done Register on 22.06.2006 afternoon for having taken classes according to the Time Table on 22.06.2006 and that the Register clearly shows that she was in the School throughout the day on 22.06.2006 till the end of school time. She did not have supervision duty after regular school hours on 22.06.2006 as it was Thursday, whereas, she had been allotted study supervision only on Tuesday evening as per the Time Table given by the Headmistress. 3.4. On 23.06.2006, the petitioner came to School in the morning and while signing the Attendance Register, she found that her signature on 22.06.2006 afternoon was erased and it was marked in red ink as Casual Leave. Erasing and marking of Casual Leave in the Register for the afternoon of 22.06.2006 throws a doubt on her sincerity and integrity as a Teacher. Everyday, both in the morning and in the afternoon, the Master Register should be consolidated and at the bottom of the Register, the total number of teachers those who have attended the school will be shown and the total number of teachers on leave will also be shown and after that, the Headmistress will sign the same. On 22.06.2006, the total number of Teachers who have attended the School has been erased as they have already erased her signature and in order to suit the total consolidation, they have erased the total also. 3.5. From 23.06.2006 onwards, the petitioner was complaining to the Headmistress about erasing of her signature and marking of Casual Leave in red ink in the Attendance Register and requested her to take suitable action against the person who tampered the records. But, she did not take any action against the person. So, she gave a complaint to the Headmistress in writing on 05.07.2006. According to the petitioner, she was forced to withdraw the said complaint. But, she did not take any action against the person. So, she gave a complaint to the Headmistress in writing on 05.07.2006. According to the petitioner, she was forced to withdraw the said complaint. Since no action was taken on her complaint, having patiently waited for four months, the petitioner gave a complaint to the C.E.O., Nagercoil, the 4th respondent herein on 23.11.2006 detailing all aspects and requested him to take suitable action against the person who tampered with the Master Register kept in the school, on 22.06.2006. According to the petitioner, the C.E.O. decided to give a memo against her and thereby, he had obtained a letter from the Headmistress; but they have cunningly post-dated the petitioners complaint as if it was given on 04.09.2006. Thereafter, the C.E.O. issued a charge memo on 07.12.2006. 3.6. In the charge memo, the respondent has relied on three documents (1) Complaint given by A.Dennis, part-time Waterman working in the School against the petitioner, dated 22.06.2006, (2) Complaint dated 23.06.2006 given by Mr.Subanandaraj and (3) Letter dated 04.09.2006 written by the Headmistress. But, the said three documents were not enclosed along with the charge memo. The first charge in the Charge Memo is that "the petitioner had used unpleasant words on 22.06.2006 against the Headmistress and part time Waterman working in the School namely, A.Dennis". The second charge is that "On 22.06.2006, the petitioner left the School at about 3.15pm without taking permission from the person in charge of the school and did not return to the School". The petitioner claims that both the charges are false. 3.7. According to Dennis, the petitioner is said to have scolded him in indecent words when he came to serve the Memo of substituted work during the fourth period in the morning of 22.06.2006 and she also scolded the Headmistress. And again, when he came to the petitioner in the noon hours, she is said to have scolded him and the Headmistress in indecent terms and again, he is said to have come at about 3.15pm to get the petitioners signature and found that she was not available in the school campus. According to the petitioner, all Dennis has stated in his complaint are wild, false and frivolous allegations and that she was fully available in the school throughout the day up to the end of school hours. According to the petitioner, all Dennis has stated in his complaint are wild, false and frivolous allegations and that she was fully available in the school throughout the day up to the end of school hours. But, the said Dennis has falsely stated that he came to the petitioner at 3.15pm and she was not available in the school campus. Further, he has also falsely stated that in the previous occasion also, the petitioner has refused to sign the note containing substituted work stating that no incentive was given to her, which are all false and vexatious one. That is why, the petitioner requested the C.E.O. to give a copy of the complaint given by the above said persons against her, so that she can give proper and suitable explanation to the charge memo. But, till date, the copies of the said complaints have not been served on the petitioner. 3.8. Whereas, in the complaint said to have been given by Mr.Subanandaraj, it is stated that even though he repeatedly tried for signature of the petitioner in the note containing substituted work, she refused to sign the same stating that no incentive was given to her and also stated that she had scolded Dennis and Subanandaraj in indecent words and he had reported the same to the Headmistress on the next day. According to the petitioner, she did not scold Dennis and Headmistress and also Subanandaraj at any point of time. 3.9. The petitioner would further state that she is known for her sincerity, humility, simplicity and dedicated services and integrity. Further, it is also very peculiar on the part of Subanandaraj, who is in charge of the school, that on 22.06.2006, he had gone out of the school and enquired about the petitioner in the street. According to the petitioner, all these things would show that the allegations made by Dennis, Subanandaraj and the Headmistress against her are utterly false and imaginary. According to Subanandaraj, he is said to have made a complaint about the petitioners behaviour to the Headmistress on 23.06.2006. If it is so, the Headmistress has got all powers to serve a Memo on the petitioner on the allegations made by Subanandaraj and Dennis and call for explanation. According to Subanandaraj, he is said to have made a complaint about the petitioners behaviour to the Headmistress on 23.06.2006. If it is so, the Headmistress has got all powers to serve a Memo on the petitioner on the allegations made by Subanandaraj and Dennis and call for explanation. But, she did not issue any Memo to the petitioner immediately or subsequently, calling upon her to give an explanation, since no such incident happened as falsely alleged by Dennis and Subanandaraj on 22.06.2006. Had the petitioner actually left the school without the permission of Subanandaraj, the Headmistress has every right to issue a memo in this connection and call for her explanation. She did not issue any memo either on 23.06.2006 or on any other day. 3.10. On 22.06.2006, the petitioner was available in the school, both in the forenoon and afternoon, taking classes as per the time table already given to her. Dennis did not come to the petitioner to get her signature at any point of time during the day on 22.06.2006 and the petitioner did not scold him and the Headmistress. The allegations made in the letter dated 22.06.2006 of Dennis and the allegations made in Subanandarajs letter dated 23.06.2006 are completely false. She was not given any substituted work on 22.06.2006; that is why the Headmistress did not issue any Memo to the petitioner and called upon her to give an explanation. Mr.N.Subanandaraj is the person who had manipulated the Attendance Register on 22.06.2006 in the absence of Headmistress. He was put in charge of the school superseding two senior most Postgraduate Assistants, who should be in charge of the School in the absence of Headmistress. 3.11. Since both the above persons are committed to the Headmistress, she used them as a tool by dictating and getting false and fabricated complaints against the petitioner. If the above two individuals had actually submitted complaints on 22.06.2006 and 23.06.2006, respectively, nothing prevented the Headmistress from issuing any memo against the petitioner and call for an explanation from her. Further, the petitioner has raised a question as to why the Headmistress had waited for 73 days. The petitioner had her own doubts as to whether there were actually complaints against her on 22.06.2006, 23.06.2006 and 04.09.2006. The above facts were the reason for her insistence on getting xerox copies of complaints. Further, the petitioner has raised a question as to why the Headmistress had waited for 73 days. The petitioner had her own doubts as to whether there were actually complaints against her on 22.06.2006, 23.06.2006 and 04.09.2006. The above facts were the reason for her insistence on getting xerox copies of complaints. The denial of xerox copies of the complaints would clearly prove that they must be false and fabricated ones and there was no immediate cause of action on the Department side viz. the Headmistress/Chief Educational Officer/Joint Director. 3.12. The allegations made by the Headmistress in her letter dated 04.09.2006 are also false and it clearly shows that somehow, she wants to get rid of the petitioner from the School so that she can be put to lot of troubles. So, in all these ways, she gave troubles and finally influenced the C.E.O. to issue charge memo on the basis of false allegations made by Dennis, Subanandaraj against the petitioner. But the said letters given by Dennis, Subanandaraj and Headmistress were not enclosed along with the charge memo issued to the petitioner. So, the petitioner requested the Chief Education Officer to kindly give her a copy of three letters to enable the petitioner to give proper reply to the charge memo. Inspite of it, he did not give the petitioner copies of complaints. Thus, the petitioner was handicapped from giving proper and suitable reply to the charge memo. As per natural law and equity, it is the bounden duty of the CEO to issue a copy of the said letters said to have been given by Dennis, Subanandaraj and Headmistress, but without giving the same, he was going on dragging the matter. He did not call upon the petitioner to appear for any enquiry before him and why he did not do so is not known to the petitioner. But, however, he wrote a letter stating that in case there is any enquiry at that time, the petitioner would be permitted to go through the letters. Even though he has stated that there would be "Neradi Visarani", he never called upon the petitioner for any enquiry. 3.13. But, however, he wrote a letter stating that in case there is any enquiry at that time, the petitioner would be permitted to go through the letters. Even though he has stated that there would be "Neradi Visarani", he never called upon the petitioner for any enquiry. 3.13. Had the Chief Educational Officer called for the Attendance Register and Work Done Register, those documents will clearly establish that the petitioner had actually been on duty till school time on 22.06.2006 and necessity of framing charges against her would not have arisen at all. But, disciplinary action was initiated with the aim of silencing and threatening the petitioner by use of official powers. The petitioners repeated requests for suitable action against the person responsible for manipulating important Government Records were turned down by the C.E.O., which clearly proves that C.E.O. had shielded the culprit who had manipulated the Government Record. 3.14. On 15.12.2006, the petitioner requested the Chief Educational Officer to serve xerox copies of the complaints on her to facilitate her to go through the complaints and submit explanation of defence. But, the Chief Educational Officer had not served the xerox copies of complaints. On the contrary, the Headmistress had demanded her explanation within six hours on 08.03.2007, vide her Circular dated 08.03.2007. For which, the petitioner had represented to the Chief Educational Officer on 13.03.2007 requesting to serve xerox copies of complaints to enable her to submit her detailed explanation of defence. In C.E.Os letter No.Na.Ka.No.8526/A/2006 dated 26.03.2007, the petitioner was informed that copies of complaints will be shown to the petitioner during enquiry. Since no enquiry was conducted, copies of complaints were not shown to her. On 13.03.2007, the petitioner had requested the Chief Educational Officer to serve her xerox copies of complaints. Thus the C.E.O. had denied her an opportunity of perusing the complaints and submit her detailed explanation of defence. Thus, provisions of reasonable opportunity provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was grossly violated. This denial is also against the provisions and guidelines prescribed under the Rules. 3.15. The C.E.O. gave a letter on 26.03.2007 stating that in case personal enquiry is conducted with the petitioner, she would be permitted to look into the documents. Thus, provisions of reasonable opportunity provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was grossly violated. This denial is also against the provisions and guidelines prescribed under the Rules. 3.15. The C.E.O. gave a letter on 26.03.2007 stating that in case personal enquiry is conducted with the petitioner, she would be permitted to look into the documents. According to her, there is no use in permitting her to go through the documents at the time of enquiry without facilitating the petitioner to give proper explanation by giving copy of the said three letters. For the said letter, the petitioner gave her reply on 14.04.2007 requesting her to give copy of the said three letters and in case, she is not given copies of the same, she will be left with no other option but to approach the court. 3.16. It is understood that the CEO had reported to higher officials vide his letter No.8526/A2/2006 dated 09.05.2007 and recommended disciplinary action against her. Based on this letter, the Joint Director, Higher Secondary Education had served proceedings Na.Ka.No.045113/W3/E3/07 dated 02.11.2007 directing the petitioner to submit her explanation within 15 days. She wrote a letter to the Joint Director on 06.12.2007 requesting her to give copies of the letters given by the above said Dennis, Subanandaraj and Headmistress, but was not given copies of the said letters. 3.17. For the letter written by the Joint Director of School Education on 02.11.2007, the petitioner had sent a letter dated 06.12.2007, wherein, she has stated clearly that the Headmistress, out of animosity, had made false allegations against her and also requested him to issue copies of the documents relied on in the charge memo, so that she can give her detailed reply and thus safeguard herself. Of course, in page 2 of her letter, she has stated that she has not committed any charges mentioned by the Joint Director in his letter dated 02.11.2007. Further, she specifically stated that she has not committed any charge as mentioned. Further, she would state that the said letter cannot be treated as explanation to the charge memo, but unfortunately, the Joint Director has treated this letter as an explanation to the charge memo. Further, she specifically stated that she has not committed any charge as mentioned. Further, she would state that the said letter cannot be treated as explanation to the charge memo, but unfortunately, the Joint Director has treated this letter as an explanation to the charge memo. As the Department was particular to punish the petitioner at any rate, since she has initiated contempt proceedings, the Joint Director has hurriedly passed the order of punishment by treating the said letter as if, she gave an explanation to the charge memo. The petitioner sent a letter on 06.12.2007 to the Joint Director requesting him to give copies of all the three letters relied upon for issuing charge memo. 3.18. After that, on 31.12.2007, the Joint Director, by his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.45113/W/E3/07 dated 31.12.2007 straightaway passed an order of punishment of "Censure" against the petitioner, which is wrong. Once, he has proposed to pass an order of punishment of Censure, he should have called upon the petitioner to give her representation against the proposed punishment as contemplated under Rule 17(C) of Tamil Nadu CCA Rules, but he has completely violated Rule 17(C) and has passed the order of punishment without any opportunity given to the petitioner to make her representation against the proposed punishment and as such, the order of the Joint Director also suffers from illegality and is abinitio void and is liable to be quashed by this court. Further, the said order is also a non-speaking order and he has not given any reason as to why he has come to the conclusion of imposing punishment of Censure, which is in violation of guidelines given by the Government Letter No.9438/A/2004-8 dated 15.10.2004. 3.19. No enquiry was conducted by the Joint Director in connection with the charge memo and she was not called upon to appear for enquiry by the Joint Director for reasons best known to himself. No enquiry was conducted, no witness was examined to prove the charges against the petitioner and she was not given any chance to cross-examine the witness and no documents were marked. Particularly, the Master Attendance Register and the Work Done Register should have been looked into by the Joint Director before coming to any conclusion with regard to the charge memo. Particularly, the Master Attendance Register and the Work Done Register should have been looked into by the Joint Director before coming to any conclusion with regard to the charge memo. Had he looked into the Master Attendance Register and the Work Done Register, he could have seen himself and could have come to a conclusion about the falsity of the allegations made against the petitioner by Dennis, Subanandaraj and the Headmistress. 3.20. In the Office Inspection book published by Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, it is stated that "The Rules of Natural Justice requires that wherever a case is based on the documentary evidence and if the delinquent requests inspection of such document, she should be allowed necessary facilities." But, this rule of Natural Justice had been flouted on this matter. On this ground, the proceedings of the Joint Director bearing No.045113/W3/E3/07 dated 02.11.2007 and proceeding dated 31.12.2007 and consequently proceedings of the Director bearing No.04113/W3/07 dated 06.03.2008 are liable to be quashed. 3.21. Since the enquiry was not conducted by Chief Educational Officer, the truth could not be brought out and the petitioner has been victimized with "Censure". On this ground, the proceedings of the Joint Director bearing No.045113/W3/E3/07 dated 02.11.2007 and proceedings dated 31.12.2007 are liable to be quashed by this court. 3.22. Against the above punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Director on 11.02.2008. But, the Director instead of examining her grievance and the points raised in her appeal and rendering justice had bluntly confirmed the punishment of "Censure". Even without giving the petitioner a chance of hearing, he dismissed the appeal on 06.03.2008 as per his Proceedings Na.Ka.No.04113/W3/E3/07. 3.23. In Government Letter No.1118/per-N/87 dated 22.12.1987, time limits have been prescribed for initiating and finalizing disciplinary action. In this case, disciplinary action was first initiated by the Chief Educational Officer on 07.12.2006 and the time limit prescribed by Government was over for completing disciplinary action at C.E.O. level itself. As such, the disciplinary action by the Joint Director after nearly one year is time barred and unwarranted and is in violation of Government Orders. Hence, the Joint Directors proceedings dated 02.11.2007 and proceedings dated 31.12.007 and consequential proceedings dated 06.03.2008 of the Director are liable to be quashed by this court. Having no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this court. 4. Hence, the Joint Directors proceedings dated 02.11.2007 and proceedings dated 31.12.007 and consequential proceedings dated 06.03.2008 of the Director are liable to be quashed by this court. Having no other alternative and efficacious remedy, the petitioner has approached this court. 4. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, it is stated as follows : (i) The petitioner is a Post Graduate Teacher in Tamil, appointed by the Joint Director of School Education, Chennai and she retired on 31.05.2011. The 4th respondent paid the entire amount as per the orders passed by this court in W.P.No.18326 of 2006. There is no enmity between respondents 1 to 4 and the petitioner and they have no motive to punish the petitioner. The petitioner had worked in Munchirai Higher Secondary School and faced several enquiries and she had never done any dedicated service. Moreover, she never made any complaint to the Headmaster regarding the erasing of her signature in the Attendance Register. For the illegal act of the petitioner, the 4th respondent gave a Memo on 04.09.2006, after which only, the petitioner gave a complaint to the 3rd respondent on 23.11.2006. The Joint Director (Higher Secondary) enquired the matter in full and issued a charge memo under Rule 17(a) of Tamil Nadu CCA Rules on 07.12.2006 to the petitioner for charges with regard to rubbing of Attendance Register and abusing in foul language and for leaving the school without the permission of the Headmistress. The 2nd respondent conducted enquiries and perused documents and issued charge memo as per law and Government Order. (ii) Mr.Subanandaraj acted as Headmaster and on 22.06.2006, he made a true complaint about the behaviour of the petitioner and sent a Report regarding her behaviour to the 4th respondent i.e. the Chief Educational Officer, Nagercoil to take action. The complaint of Mr.Subanandaraj was also found to be correct during enquiry. (iii) The 2nd respondent conducted a discrete enquiry, perused the documents and as per Service Rules, issued charge memo to the petitioner. As per law, he called for explanation from the petitioner on 02.11.2007 and after getting rely dated 06.12.2007, the 2nd respondent perused the documents and passed the order of punishment of Censure as per the Service Rules in force. According to the respondents, in order to drag on the matter, the petitioner called for xerox copies of complaint despite fully knowing the contents of the complaint. According to the respondents, in order to drag on the matter, the petitioner called for xerox copies of complaint despite fully knowing the contents of the complaint. 5. Denying the allegations and averments contained in the counter affidavit, the petitioner has filed a reply affidavit and has inter alia stated that the 7th respondent, who is stated to be working as Waterman, DEO Office, Kuzhithurai died while in service and is no more. The petitioner has not faced any enquiries and no proof has been adduced and the allegations are vague and wild. Further, Government Circular No.14353/per-N/93-1 of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (per-N) Department, dated 11.03.1993 states that "An officers past record should not be taken into account in arriving at a finding as to the truth or otherwise of the charges against him." According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent never issued a memo to her on 04.09.2006 and the fact remains that she had submitted two complaints, one on 05.07.2006 to the Headmistress and the other on 23.11.2006 to the Chief Educational Officer regarding the tampering of her attendance on the afternoon of 22.06.2006. The very first Memo dated 07.12.2006 was issued by the CEO only after submission of two representations dated 05.07.2006 and 23.11.2006, which is clear from the Charge Memo itself, wherein, they are cited as Reference-1. 5a. Actually, the Headmistress, Government Higher Secondary School, Nattalam had reported against the petitioner to the 4th respondent on 04.09.2006 as mentioned in the 4th respondents very first memo dated 07.12.2006. The 3rd respondent had never conducted any enquiry on this matter. But, in the reply affidavit filed by the 4th respondent, it is stated that the 4th respondent recommended to the 3rd respondent to take disciplinary action against the petitioner basing upon his enquiry. In the reply affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is stated that the 2nd respondent conducted direct enquiry, perused the documents and as per Service Rules, issued charge memo to the petitioner. Thus, there is contradiction in the statements of 3rd and 4th respondents. Further, there is no truth in the statement that the Joint Director enquired the matter in full and issued a charge memo on 07.12.2006 to the petitioner. The proceedings were initiated by Joint Director only on 02.11.2007, but, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of Censure. 6. Thus, there is contradiction in the statements of 3rd and 4th respondents. Further, there is no truth in the statement that the Joint Director enquired the matter in full and issued a charge memo on 07.12.2006 to the petitioner. The proceedings were initiated by Joint Director only on 02.11.2007, but, the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of Censure. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that even though the petitioner has given two complaints, one on 05.07.2006 to the Headmistress and the other on 23.11.2006 to the Chief Education Officer, no action was taken against the person who illegally tampered with the government records namely, Master Attendance Register kept in the School. It is his further contention that the Joint Director ought to have complied with Rule 17C of Tamil Nadu CCA Rules and called upon the petitioner to make a representation against the proposed punishment, but without following the Rules, he had straightaway proposed the punishment of censure against the petitioner and immediately passed an order of punishment of censure in one and the same proceedings without even giving her a chance of representation against the proposed punishment and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. He would also contend that no enquiry was conducted by the Joint Director in connection with the charge memo and that the petitioner was not called upon to appear for enquiry by the Joint Director for reasons best known to himself. 7. Per contra, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the petitioner never made any complaint to the Headmaster regarding the erasing of her signature in the Attendance Register. For the illegal act of the petitioner, the 4th respondent gave a Memo on 04.09.2006 and only after that, the petitioner gave a complaint to the 3rd respondent on 23.11.2006. He would contend that the petitioner, in order to drag on the matter had called for xerox copies of the complaint. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and also the orders impugned. 9. On going through the records, what comes to be known is that based on the complaint of the Headmistress of the Government Higher Secondary School, Nattalam, Kanyakumari District, the Chief Educational Officer, fourth respondent herein, issued a Charge Memo against the petitioner on 07.12.2006, containing the following charges : "1. 9. On going through the records, what comes to be known is that based on the complaint of the Headmistress of the Government Higher Secondary School, Nattalam, Kanyakumari District, the Chief Educational Officer, fourth respondent herein, issued a Charge Memo against the petitioner on 07.12.2006, containing the following charges : "1. The petitioner had used unpleasant words on 22.06.2006 against the Headmistress and the part-time Waterman working in the School, namely, A.Dennis. 2. On 22.06.2006, the petitioner left the school at about 03.15 p.m. without taking permission from the person in-charge of the school and did not return to the school." 10. The petitioner, instead of giving explanation for the said charge memo, asked for xerox copies of the documents, on whose basis the charges were framed. Pursuant thereto, the fourth respondent vide his proceedings, dated 09.05.2007, to the Joint Director, third respondent herein, recommended for disciplinary action against the petitioner. Thereafter, the third respondent served the proceedings, dated 02.11.2007, directing the petitioner to submit her explanation and the same was submitted by the petitioner on 06.12.2007. 11. It is pertinent to mention here that the specific case of the petitioner was that though she complained the matter with regard to erasing of her signature and marking of Casual Leave in the Attendance Register and requested for suitable action against the persons who tampered with the records, no action was taken by the fourth respondent and instead he recommended for action against the petitioner. Subsequently, the third respondent, proceeded to impose the punishment of censure on the petitioner. 12. In this connection, it is quite relevant to refer to Rule 17 (a) of the Rules, which reads as follows : "In every case where it is proposed to impose on a member of a service or a person holding a civil post under the State any of the penalties specified in items (i),(ii),(iii),(v) and (ix) in Rule 8 or in Rule 9, he shall be given a reasonable opportunity of making any representation that he may desire to make and such representation, if any, shall be taken into consideration before the order imposing the penalty is passed." 13. The above provision makes it clear that if any of the penalties specified in items (i), (ii),(iii),(v) and (ix) in Rule 8 or in Rule 9 is proposed to be imposed by the authority on a member of a service or a person holding a civil post under the State, the authority should give such member or person a reasonable opportunity of making any representation that he may desire and such representation should be taken into consideration before passing the order imposing penalty. 14. Keeping the above principle in mind, if we take the impugned order of the third respondent, dated 31.12.2007, it is visible that no such opportunity of making any representation was afforded to the petitioner by the authority, before imposing the penalty. Even when the order of the third respondent was taken on appeal before the appellate authority, namely, second respondent, the necessity of affording a reasonable opportunity of making representation was not considered by the said authority and he simply confirmed the order of the third respondent. Although a stand has been taken by the respondents in the counter that they conducted an enquiry into the charges, no material is produced before this Court as to who conducted the enquiry and what the findings of the enquiry officer are. In the absence of any such material, the said stand of the respondents cannot be countenanced. Besides, though an explanation was called for by the respondents to the charge memo, it could not be construed to be an opportunity of making representation, as the said opportunity of making representation to be given to the petitioner should be specific to the point of proposed penalty. 15. It is true that the punishment of censure is only minor and the said punishment is not a hindrance to the future prospects of the employee. Even then, in service jurisprudence, whenever there are certain allegations and counter allegations, the authorities are duty bound to follow the procedure contemplated under the Rules and only thereafter they have to come to a definite conclusion, which is, admittedly, not done in this case. Any punishment which lacks the procedure contemplated under the Rules is void or of no value. 16. In this case, the fact may remain that the petitioner has retired by now and her retirement benefits have also been reaped. Any punishment which lacks the procedure contemplated under the Rules is void or of no value. 16. In this case, the fact may remain that the petitioner has retired by now and her retirement benefits have also been reaped. It may also not be the case of the petitioner that because of censure, her promotional avenues have been affected. What may, as indicated above, were the procedure contemplated under Rule 17 (a) followed by the authorities before imposing the penalty, there would not have been any infirmity in the action of the respondents in passing the orders impugned. But, that has not happened here. In such a situation, the attitude of the authorities in imposing the punishment on the petitioner de hors the procedure cannot be appreciated and the orders thereon are unsustainable. Though this Court is of the view to remand the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration, in view of the fact that the petitioner has retired from service, the said remand would not serve any purpose. 17. Therefore, this Writ Petition is allowed and the orders impugned are set aside, without there being any order as to remand. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P.No.1 of 2008 is closed.