JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner filed O.A.No.8428 of 2000 before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, seeking to challenge an order dated 6.9.2000 issued by the second respondent viz., Superintendent of Police, Railways, Chennai and the show cause notice issued by the 1st respondent dated 01.11.2000 and to set aside the same. 2. The Original Application was admitted on 20.11.2000. Pending the notice, an interim stay was granted for limited period. Subsequently, it was extended on 07.12.2003 without specifying any outer time limit. 3. In view of the abolition of the Tribunal, the matter stood transferred to this Court and was re-numbered as W.P.No.41668 of 2006. 4. The facts leading to the filing of the Original Applications were as follows:- The petitioner was recruited as Police Constable (Armed Reserve) on 05.12.1988. Subsequently, he was transferred to Railway Police on 08.12.1994. He was placed under suspension on 02.02.1999, which suspension was revoked on 05.03.1999. Thereafter, he was served with charge memo in P.R.No.23/99 dated 05.04.1999. The charge against the petitioner was that he was indiscipline and indifferent in causing delay to come to Chengalpattu Railway Police with Jeep to go to Tindivanam in connection with investigation in Crime No.16/99 filed under Section 302 IPC. Even though instructions were given that he should come at 7 a.m on that day, he brought the jeep without diesel and left Tambaram Railway Police Station without informing the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Tambaram. When enquired about the late arrival, he pushed aside the hand of the Inspector and questioned his authority. 5. An oral enquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Railways, Central and held that the charges were not proved. The second respondent served a Show Cause Notice dated 16.08.2000 along with the minute of the enquiry report stating that he is disagreeing with the oral enquiry and held that the charges were proved. The petitioner was directed to show cause as to why punishment should not be imposed on him. The petitioner gave his explanation. Thereafter, a punishment of Black Mark was awarded on 06.09.2000. As against the awarding of the punishment of Black Mark, the petitioner filed an appeal to the first respondent. But the first respondent issued a show cause notice asking the petitioner to give explanation as to why the punishment of Black Mark should not be enhanced by the impugned notice. 6. As against the awarding of the punishment of Black Mark, the petitioner filed an appeal to the first respondent. But the first respondent issued a show cause notice asking the petitioner to give explanation as to why the punishment of Black Mark should not be enhanced by the impugned notice. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the punishing authority must call for explanation before passing the punishment order on the dissent note, whereas the petitioner was informed as to why he should not be punished for the delinquency. Further when his appeal is pending with the first respondent, it was arbitrary on his part to give a show cause notice. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. K.K.Verma reported in 2010 (13) SCC 494 and relied upon the following passage found in paragraph 28, which is as follows:- "28. ...Thus, the right to represent against the findings in the inquiry report to prove one's innocence is distinct from the right to represent against the proposed penalty. It is only the second right to represent against the proposed penalty which is taken away by the 42nd Amendment. The right to represent against the findings in the report is not disturbed in any way. In fact, any denial thereof will make the final order vulnerable." 8. In the present case, by a memo dated 16.08.200, the disciplinary authority disagreed with the Enquiry Officer and gave an opportunity to the petitioner to represent against his disagreement. Thereafter, the petitioner gave a detailed reply running through 7 pages. In the reply, the petitioner never made a grievance about the notice after disagreement and the competent authority on considering his explanation took a lenient view and imposed the punishment of Black Mark. In his appeal memo sent to the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has not made any grievance about the violation of principles of natural justice. Secondly, the impugned notice is only a show cause notice. The petitioner can very well make grievance not only about the charges not being proved but also that he was prejudiced by the conduct of the disciplinary authority. 9. Reliance placed upon Punjab National Bank's case (cited supra) does not take the case of the petitioner any further. Secondly, the impugned notice is only a show cause notice. The petitioner can very well make grievance not only about the charges not being proved but also that he was prejudiced by the conduct of the disciplinary authority. 9. Reliance placed upon Punjab National Bank's case (cited supra) does not take the case of the petitioner any further. On the other hand, the Supreme Court vide its judgment in Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja reported in (2008) 9 SCC 31 has held that non-furnishing of enquiry report will not vitiate the penalty and unless the employee was prejudiced, the resultant penalty cannot be set aside. Similar view was taken in the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Bishamber Das Dogra reported in (2009) 13 SCC 102 . 10. In the light of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.