Judgment 1. The petitioner, while working as Executive Officer Grade III, was served with charge memo on 04.02.1970. The petitioner was also placed under suspension pending enquiry. The petitioner in order to defend himself, requested the respondent to furnish copies of 15 documents, on which reliance was placed by the prosecution to prove misconduct against petitioner. 2. The request of petitioner was not accepted, and without supplying with necessary documents, enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charges levelled against him. 3. The competent authority accepted the report of enquiry officer and issued order of dismissal on 18.09.1982. The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal by filing writ petition in this Court, but due to constitution of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the writ petition was transferred to the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 4. The Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal allowed the application filed by the petitioner and remitted the case back to competent authority to hold enquiry fresh after furnishing documents, requested by the petitioner, so as to enable petitioner to effectively defend himself. 5. In spite of specific order passed by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, the documents requested by petitioner were not supplied to him. 6. On the other hand, the respondent, instead of holding further enquiry, issued a show cause notice to the petitioner along with a copy of enquiry report to show cause as to why he be not dismissed from service. 7. In reply to the show cause notice, the petitioner again requested for supply of 15 documents, which were necessary for the petitioner to raise his defense to the proposed action. 8. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the show cause notice, proposing major penalty, approached the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, on the ground that the earlier order of the learned Administrative Tribunal was not complied with, as the respondent had failed to supply copies of the documents on which reliance was placed by the prosecution. 9. Learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal admitted the application, but refused to grant stay. The petitioner also did not appear before the enquiry officer for want of necessary documents, which again resulted in holding petitioner guilty of charges and revival of the order of dismissal. 10. 9. Learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal admitted the application, but refused to grant stay. The petitioner also did not appear before the enquiry officer for want of necessary documents, which again resulted in holding petitioner guilty of charges and revival of the order of dismissal. 10. The impugned part of the order, as translated, reads as under: "Therefore, in the disciplinary proceedings against him, as per the report submitted by the Joint Commissioner, Thanjavur, after examining this Office Proceedings Na.Ka.No.75417/77/B6 dated 18.09.1992 carefully and independently, the following final orders are passed. The order passed in this Office Proceedings Na.Ka.No.75417/77/B6 dated 18.09.1992 dismissing him from service is confirmed inasmuch as the allegations levelled against Thiru T.V.Velayutham, Grade III Executive Officer are serious in nature and though the delinquent was furnished with enquiry report on 27.04.1992 through his advocates as per the direction issued by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal on 25.10.1991 and again the same was sent on 05.08.1997 through his advocate, and also he was permitted to peruse the documents either during the enquiry or before the enquiry, the same was not utilized by the delinquent and wantonly dragging the disciplinary proceedings." 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order on the ground that the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was violative of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was not supplied with relevant documents to effectively defend himself in the enquiry, inspite of specific direction by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 12. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground that it is outcome of non application of mind, as the respondent has ordered revival of order Na.Ka.No.75417/77/B6 dated 18.09.1982, which was not in existence, having been set aside by the learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal. 13. The third ground of challenge is that the impugned order cannot be sustained, being without jurisdiction, as the competent authority has no jurisdiction to issue order of dismissal with retrospective effect. 14. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, by contending, that allegations against petitioner were of serious nature. Enquiry officer conducted enquiry in accordance with rules, where the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend, and it was the petitioner, who chose not to associate in the enquiry for want of documents. 15. 14. The writ petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent, by contending, that allegations against petitioner were of serious nature. Enquiry officer conducted enquiry in accordance with rules, where the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend, and it was the petitioner, who chose not to associate in the enquiry for want of documents. 15. It is also contention of learned counsel for respondent, that as the learned Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal remanded the case back for reconsideration, it was in compliance of order of learned Tribunal that the petitioner was given opportunity to show cause. The explanation submitted by petitioner was not found satisfactory, therefore, the order already passed was revived in accordance with law. 16. On consideration, I find that the contention of learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted. Once specific direction was issued by learned Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal, to supply the copies of documents asked for, it was not open to the respondent not to comply with the order, and proceed with enquiry by issuing of show cause notice. 17. The contention of learned counsel for the respondent, that remand order amounted to continuation of proceedings, also cannot be sustained, as learned Tamilnadu Administrative Tribuanl had set aside the order, by allowing the application filed by the petitioner. 18. It was after setting aside the impugned order, that the case was remanded back for reconsideration by complying with the principles of natural justice. 19. The contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, deserves to be accepted. Non supply of documents, which were relevant and were basis for holding the petitioner guilty could not be withheld from petitioner. It can safely be said that the enquiry held against the petitioner was in violation of principles of natural justice, as petitioner was not provided with adequate opportunity to defend himself. 20. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order is outcome of non application of mind, also deserves to be accepted, as the order revived is not in existence. 21. The learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had set aside the order of dismissal dated 18.09.1982, therefore, it was not possible for the respondents to revive the said order. Nor it was within jurisdiction of competent authority, to pass the order of dismissal with retrospective effect. 22. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. 21. The learned Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal had set aside the order of dismissal dated 18.09.1982, therefore, it was not possible for the respondents to revive the said order. Nor it was within jurisdiction of competent authority, to pass the order of dismissal with retrospective effect. 22. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back to the competent authority to proceed in accordance with law after supplying necessary documents / papers requested by the petitioner, if so advised. 23. No costs.