Judgment :- The petitioner was served with a show cause notice under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, on the following lapses: "(i) Deliberate neglect of duty in failing to include the 1984 Kothankulam Plantation in the list of plantations to be harvested during 2001-2002 and also in failing to protect the 1984 Kothankulam Karuvel Plantation 13.50 Hectares properly and not prevent the illicit fellings in the above plantation. (ii) Causing loss to the Government to the extent of Rs.55,392/- (Rupees Fifty Five Thousand Three Hundred and Ninety Two only) by not preventing illicit fellings in 1984 Kothankulam Karuvel Plantation 13.50 Hectares which is under his control." 2. The petitioner was called upon to file his reply to the charges within 15 days of receipt of the notice. The show cause notice was admittedly served on the petitioner on 28.09.2001. The petitioner was on medical leave from 02.10.2001 to 13.12.2001, therefore, did not submit his reply to the show cause notice within the stipulated time of 15 days. 3. The case of petitioner is that even after rejoining duty on expiry of leave, he could not submit his reply, as he was under continuous treatment, and due to pressure of official duties. Keeping in view the medical leave of petitioner, he was thereafter allowed to file reply by 12.12.2001, but without waiting for the reply of petitioner, an exparte order was passed for recovery. 4. The impugned order is challenged on the ground that the order is based on one sided version of the Forest Ranger, and that the report of the Forest Ranger is false. 5. The impugned order is also challenged on the ground that the order of recovery was passed in haste without waiting for explanation of petitioner. 6. The other ground of challenge is that the respondents failed to take note of the reality of the area, before passing recovery order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends, that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as without holding enquiry, it was not permissible to impose punishment of recovery of loss caused to department. 8. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. 8. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. The time was even extended so as to enable the petitioner to file explanation. The petitioner chose not to file reply to the charges levelled against him, therefore, would be deemed to have been admitted. 9. Once the proceedings are initiated under Rule 17(a) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, no regular enquiry is required to be conducted, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 10. The impugned order, therefore, is based on unrebutted allegations, which were supported by the report of Forest Ranger, which does not call for any interference by this Court, in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 11. No merits. Dismissed. No costs.