ORDER 1. The sole writ petitioner died on 1.9.2010, therefore, his Legal Representatives are impleaded as petitioners 2 to 6 in the writ petition. The first petitioner/deceased employee was given a charge memo on 1.4.2008. The main charge being misconduct under sub-clause (xiiv) of Neyveli Lignite Corporation (NLC) Standing Order No. 46. There are six other charges also. He sent a reply on 22.11.2008. The disciplinary authority found that his explanation was not satisfactory, hence, an Enquiry Officer was appointed. In the enquiry conducted before the Enquiry Officer, the first petitioner participated, though, he was not given an assistance of a lawyer, he himself has conducted the case, ultimately, the findings were given by the authority on 12.3.2009 holding the first petitioner guilty of all the charges. Therefore, a copy of the Enquiry Report together with the findings were furnished to the first petitioner and he was asked to submit his objections. Accordingly, he submitted his objections on 14.4.2009. Thereafter, the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 9.9.2009 stating that a provisional conclusion has been arrived at to inflict the punishment of dismissal from service without notice or pay/wages in lieu of notice. According to the petitioners, under Clause 47(h) of the Certified Standing Order or the Company, the disciplinary authority has to give an opportunity to the employee to make a representation on the proposed punishment. According to the petitioners, as there was violation of principles of natural justice in not granting the assistance of a lawyer, the deceased writ petitioner earlier filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 19945 of 2009, challenging the show cause notice dated 9.9.2009. This writ petition was dismissed on 11.11.2009. Thereafter, the first petitioner was directed to submit his reply regarding the provisional show cause notice and time was granted till 5.12.2009, subsequently at the request of the first petitioner, the time was extended till 23.12.2009. In the meanwhile, the first petitioner filed a writ appeal in W.A. No. 1852 of 2009 and obtained stay on 17.5.2009. The writ appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.7.2010. Even though, the first petitioner filed a restoration petition, after the dismissal of the writ appeal on 12.7.2010, by the impugned order dated 16.7.2010, the deceased employee was dismissed from service. The writ appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.7.2010. Even though, the first petitioner filed a restoration petition, after the dismissal of the writ appeal on 12.7.2010, by the impugned order dated 16.7.2010, the deceased employee was dismissed from service. According to the petitioners, the respondent has deliberately failed to give the first petitioner an opportunity to make a representation regarding the proposed punishment as contemplated under Clause 47(h) of the Certified Standing Order. The petitioners only grievance is that after the dismissal of the writ appeal also, the respondent should have issued a notice calling for explanation, but, without issuing such notice, the impugned order has been passed, which is non est in the eye of law, illegal and against the principles of natural justice, hence, the present writ petition. 2. The respondent has filed a detailed counter, Mr. N.A.K. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent would firstly contend that the employee A. Lawrence died on 1.9.2010, after the dismissal order dated 16.7.2010, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable by the Legal Representatives. The prayer of reinstatement cannot be granted therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. The first petitioner/deceased employee has not exhausted the remedy of appeal as against the dismissal order, therefore also, the writ petition is not maintainable. The first petitioner ought to have approached the Labour Court as against the dismissal order, but, he has not done so, therefore also, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent would further contend that for the charge memo given to the first petitioner on 1.4.2008, he has given an explanation and the Enquiry Officer conducted a detailed enquiry and after giving all opportunities, the first petitioner was found guilty in the enquiry proceedings. Then the provisional show cause notice dated 9.9.2009 was issued to him and even though, he was originally given ten days time to submit his explanation, but, at his request, the time was extended upto 5.10.2009, but, he did not chose to give the reply, on the contrary, he filed a writ petition in W.P. No. 19945 of 2009. After the dismissal of the writ petition on 11.11.2009, time was given to submit his explanation till 5.12.2009, but, at his request, the time was extended further upto 15.12.2009. After the dismissal of the writ petition on 11.11.2009, time was given to submit his explanation till 5.12.2009, but, at his request, the time was extended further upto 15.12.2009. Then also, the first petitioner did not submit his reply, but, he chose to file a Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 1852 of 2009, which was dismissed for default on 12.7.2010. Even thereafter, he did not reply to the show cause notice dated 9.9.2009, therefore, there is no need or necessity to give any further notice as the writ petition itself has been filed only challenging the show cause notice and when that has culminated in the final judgment in writ appeal, there need not be any further notice. In any view of the matter, after four days of the judgment in W.A. No. 1852 of 2009, dated 12.7.2010, the authority passed the final order of dismissal from service on 16.7.2010. 4. According to the respondent, as per the Supreme Court decision in D.G. Railway Protection Force and Others v. K. Raghuram Babu (2008) 4 SCC 406 : LNIND 2008 SC 546 , there is no vested or absolute right in any charge-sheeted employee to make a representation either through a counsel or through any other person, unless, the statute or rules/standing orders provide for such a right. 5. According to the respondent, in this case, the departmental enquiry was conducted in a fair manner. The first petitioner was called upon to submit his reply to the provisional show cause notice, which indicated the proposed punishment. If out of difference or over confidence, the first petitioner chose not to submit his reply to the provisional show cause notice, it cannot be stated that Clause 47(h) or any other provision of the Standing Orders have been violated, Hence, the order is per se correct. 6. Heard both sides. By consent, the main Writ Petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 7. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that the principles of natural justice has been violated. His grievance is that no doubt, the first petitioner was given the copy of the Enquiry Report together with the findings and he was asked to submit his objections. Accordingly, the first petitioner submitted his objections on 14.4.2009. 7. Mr. N.G.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners mainly contended that the principles of natural justice has been violated. His grievance is that no doubt, the first petitioner was given the copy of the Enquiry Report together with the findings and he was asked to submit his objections. Accordingly, the first petitioner submitted his objections on 14.4.2009. Thereafter, the respondent issued a show cause notice dated 9.9.2009, calling upon him to give an explanation in respect of the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. For the above said show cause notice, originally, he was given ten days time from the date of receipt of the show cause notice, to submit his explanation, but at his request, the time was extended upto 5.10.2009, inspite of the same, the first petitioner did not submit his explanation. But, he chose to file a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 19945 of 2009 challenging the very show cause notice dated 9.9.2009. This writ petition was dismissed on 11.11.2009. Thereafter also, even though, no further notice was necessary, the first petitioner was given time upto 5.12.2009 for submitting his explanation. Then also, he sought for further time and time was granted upto 15.12.2009, to submit his explanation for the original show cause notice dated 9.9.2009. After obtaining the extention of time till 15.12.2009, the first petitioner did not chose to submit his explanation, but, he filed a Writ Appeal in W.A. No. 1852 of 2009 and obtained stay in the Writ Appeal on 17.5.2009, ultimately, the writ appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.7.2010. 8. Now, it has to be very clearly understood that from 9.9.2003 at everystage, the first petitioner/deceased employee was seeking for extension of time to submit his explanation for the show cause notice. Now, the only grievance of the petitioners is that even though the first petitioner was originally granted extension of time to submit his explanation, after he filed writ petition and obtained stay, subsequently, the same was dismissed, there was yet another notice calling upon him to submit his explanation, whereas, he has not submitted his explanation, but, he filed writ appeal, subsequently, the same was dismissed for default on 12.7.2010, thereafter, without issuing another notice calling for explanation, the final order of dismissal from service passed immediately after four days i.e., on 16.7.2010, is not correct. 9. 9. The above argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Here is a case, where the first petitioner/deceased employee knowing fully well of his obligation to give explanation to the show cause notice dated 9.9.2009 has been deliberately evading his responsibility. No doubt, the first petitioner filed the writ petition, but, the same was dismissed. At that time, even though, there was no notice necessary, he was given one more opportunity by the respondent seeking for explanation. Even though, the time was granted till 5.12.2009, he sougnt for further time till 15.12.2009, accordingly, the respondent has also granted till upto 15.12.2009, but, instead of submitting his explanation, he filed writ appeal and obtained an interim order on 17.5.2009. Thereafter, the writ appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution on 12.7.2010. After the dismissal of the writ appeal on 12.7.2010, by the impugned order dated 16.7.2010, the deceased employee was dismissed from service. Therefore, I am of the view that the respondent has complied with all the provisions in accordance with law. After the dismissal of the writ appeal, there is no need for the respondent to give another notice, because, what was challenged in the writ petition as well as writ appeal itself is the original show cause notice and when that show cause notice, which was sought to be questioned was dismissed by this Court in writ petition as well as by the Division Bench of this Court in writ appeal, can it be expected once again for the grant of another notice to seek for explanation, definitely, not. Therefore, the only argument which the learned counsel put forth before this Court that he should have been given an opportunity to submit his explanation does not stand to scrutiny. 10. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Others v. Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty and Another, 2009-II-LLJ-487 (SC) , for the proposition that when the appointing authority passed a major penalty of dismissal from service, without hearing the delinquent, such order on the face of it is against the principles of natural justice and it cannot be countenanced as it is void ab initio . In the case cited supra , the Supreme Court has held as under: “ 2 . In the case cited supra , the Supreme Court has held as under: “ 2 . In this case, the respondent was punished with a major penalty was not heard. Therefore, the order of removal was set aside. We have been taken through the Rule 68(3)(iii) and we are in full agreement with the view taken by the High Court. When the Disciplinary Authority is not competent to pass a major penalty, that is, of the removal or other major penalty prescribed in the Rule, the papers are required to be placed the Disciplinary Authority to the Appointing Authority who is competent to pass a major penalty. In the present case, Disciplinary Authority was not competent to pass major penalty, therefore matter was placed before the Appointing Authority and Appointing Authority passed major penalty of dismissal without hearing delinquent. Such order which is on the face of it is against the principles of natural justice, cannot be countenanced as it is void ab initio. The proviso certainly says that the Appointing Authority, on the recommendation given by the Disciplinary Authority, shall be competent to Dass the major penalty. Simply by recommending the matter and sending the papers to the Appointing Authority, does not mean that the incumbent who is going to be served with the major penalty is not required to be heard in the matter. It is now settled principle that where ever the Rule is silent, the principles of natural justice shall be read in it. A hearing should be given to a person who is being punished with a major penalty. Therefore, the principle of natural justice has to be read in this Rule. A notice ought to have been issued to the delinquent by the Authority to whom papers were sent to show cause why the major penalty may not be imposed on him. It is true that the competent authority could pass the order of major penalty but not without hearing the incumbent. Therefore, in this context of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is correct and there is no ground for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 11. Therefore, in this context of the matter, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court is correct and there is no ground for interference in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.” 11. In the case cited supra, the Supreme Court has clearly held that the disciplinary authority has no power to pass the major penalty of removal from service, therefore, the matter was placed before the appointing authority, thereafter, the appointing authority passed a major penalty of dismissal from service, without hearing the delinquent, therefore, the order is illegal. 12. Here it is not the case, in the present case, the disciplinary authority, who has imposed the punishment directly gives a show cause notice to the first petitioner/deceased employee seeking his explanation. When he fails to give an explanation and wantonly evades to give an explanation after seeking extension of time, the punishment imposed on him cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate and the punishment imposed is commensurate with the gravity of the proven misconducts of the delinquent. Therefore, I am of the view that this case cannot be compared to the case cited supra . The facts of the case referred to above is not applicable to the facts of the present case, in this case, the disciplinary authority is the competent authority to impose punishment and he has rightly issued notice calling for explanation, therefore, the principles of natural justice has been duly followed. 13. In the final order dated 16.7.2010 also, it is clearly stated that inspite of granting all the opportunities, the first petitioner/deceased employee , i.e., A. Lawrence has failed to avail the same and the charges proved against him are very serious and grave in nature. In the final order, it was further observed as follows: “With a view to afford a reasonable opportunity, the above request was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and Extended time up to 15.12.2009 as a last chance to the individual. But in the meantime, instead of submitting his explanation, he filed a writ appeal in W.A. 1852 of 2009 and obtained an order of interim stay on 17.12.2009 on certain incorrect and flimsy grounds. However the said writ appeal was dismissed by the Hon. High Court on 12.7.2010. But in the meantime, instead of submitting his explanation, he filed a writ appeal in W.A. 1852 of 2009 and obtained an order of interim stay on 17.12.2009 on certain incorrect and flimsy grounds. However the said writ appeal was dismissed by the Hon. High Court on 12.7.2010. But Shri. A. Lawrance has failed to avail these opportunities and did not submit any explanation/representation on the provisional show cause notice till date. As the charges leveled and proved are very serious and grave in nature, the punishment proposed is therefore commensurate with the gravity of the proven misconducts.” 14. The respondent by giving all the above reasonings has ultimately dismissed the first petitioner from service. The final order of dismissal dated 16.7.2010 is in accordance with law. There is no merits in the contention raised by the petitioner in the petition. Further, admittedly, the first petitioner/deceased employee did not prefer any appeal within 14 days from the date of receipt of the final order as per the Rules. Admittedly, he died on 1.9.2010. He has also not raised any Industrial Dispute, therefore also the writ petition at this stage is not maintainable, hence, the writ petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. No. 1 of 2010 is closed. There will be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.