Judgment : 1. The petitioner being aggrieved by the punishment of compulsory retirement has invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court with the prayer for quashing the order of punishment with all consequential benefits. 2 The petitioner joined the service as Junior Assistant in pursuance to this selection by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission in the year 1973. The petitioner was promoted as Assistant in the year 1985. While working as Assistant at District Police Office, Madurai district, the petitioner was served with a charge memo under Rule 17(b) of T.N.C.S. (D & A) Rules vide P.R.No.37/99 dated 18.2.1999 by the Superintendent of Police, Madurai District. The charges against the petitioner were read as under: (1) Reprehensible conduct in having misappropriated a sum of Rs.2767/- (a sum of Rs.2,207/-) from MCB and Rs.506/- from SCB) while he was serving as Cashier in PEW Zone, Madurai and the same amount was recovered from his salary for 2,3/97 and credited to Government in city police office E.chalan No.257/97-98, dated 24.07.1997. (2) Reprehensible conduct in not having accounted for a huge amount of Rs.43,343/-properly in the UDP resulting to recover the same amount from the persons responsible for that while he was serving as a cashier in PEW Zone, Madurai. 3 The petitioner on receipt of charge memo, requested for supply of certain documents which read as under: (i) Security Register dated 11-2-94 (ii) P.E.W. Madurai Zonal PR.2/96 file against previous cashier Tr. Deivendran (iii) PEW SCB Cash Book dated 31-3-97 (iv) PEW Main Cash Book dated 31-3-97 and (v) M.T.C. 70 for the month of 10/95. 4. It is submitted by the petitioner that these documents were not supplied to the petitioner and enquiry officer was appointed without awaiting for explanation from the petitioner. According to the petitioner, this was on account of malafide intention of the Superintendent of Police, Madurai district, Madurai. However, it may be noticed here that the petitioner has not impleaded the Superintendent of Police by name against whom allegation of malafide has been levelled. 5. It is the submitted by the petitioner that in response to the request of the petitioner for supply of the documents, he was informed that it was not possible for the department to supply those documents on account of his non availability. 6. 5. It is the submitted by the petitioner that in response to the request of the petitioner for supply of the documents, he was informed that it was not possible for the department to supply those documents on account of his non availability. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that in response to his explanation, the petitioner was informed that the documents requested by him were not to be taken into consideration by the enquiry officer. The petitioner was thereafter, served with enquiry report dated 19.5.1995 and was given an opportunity to file objection to the enquiry report within 10 days of the receipt of the memo. 7. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges proved against him. The competent authority after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and awarded major punishment of compulsory retirement. 8. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of punishment. The appellate authority served a show cause notice to the petitioner vide C.No.A6/2457/37/99 dt.29.7.1999 to show cause as to why the punishment of compulsory retirement be not enhanced to that of dismissal from service. 9. On receipt of explanation from the petitioner, the show cause notice for enhancement of punishment was cancelled. The appellate authority while withdrawing the show cause notice, also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. 10. It is also submitted that the petitioner's predecessor did not hand over the cash properly resulting in a short fall of Rs.87,613/-(Rupees eighty seven thousand six hundred and thirteen only). 11. It is also submitted that the enquiry officer held the petitioner guilty of charge No.1 without relying upon any evidence. Therefore, findings of the enquiry officer are perverse. 12. The petitioner also submits that findings on charge No.2 also perverse, as the petitioner had duly explained the entries about the amount and final submission is punishment is excessive. 13. The impunged orders are challenged by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending as under: (a) Before furnishing the documents relied by the petitioner for perusal and before receiving the explanations to the charges the disciplinary authority appointed the enquiry officer and proceeded with the enquiry. This shows the bias attitude of the disciplinary authority and the same would amount to violation of principle of natural justice. In a case reported in 2005(6) SCC 321 (Canara Bank vs. VK. This shows the bias attitude of the disciplinary authority and the same would amount to violation of principle of natural justice. In a case reported in 2005(6) SCC 321 (Canara Bank vs. VK. Awasthy), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the question of violation of principles of natural justice has referred to the well known principle that justice should not only be done, but should manifestly be seen to be done. (b) The documents relied by the petitioner was not supplied or given for perusal to disprove the charges. The relied documents are rejected on the ground that the same was reported to have not been readily traceable in the City Police office, Madurai city and not been handed over in the office as per the order of the enquiry officer on 15.4.1999. At no point of time the same was rejected as the same is relevant to the charges. Those documents are crucial documents to disprove the charges by the petitioner. When the crucial documents are not made available in the enquiry or furnished to the petitioner, the same would amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend his case effectively. The same would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice and against the constitutional protection guaranteed under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the entire proceedings are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. In the case of petitioner, the charge was framed based on the audit objection, the audit objection was not furnished to the petitioner and even he was not called for to explain the defects. Though the petitioner was ready to clear the defects by stating in his written statements of defence in the enquiry the same was not considered by all the authorities. Further, for the same occurrence, a disciplinary action was initiated against the previous cashier Tr. Deivendran in PR 2/96 and he was punished for failure to account properly. The petitioner relied the said PR 2/96 to disprove his innocence in the enquiry. But the said document was not furnished to the petitioner to prove his innocence. This would amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend his case effectively. In Trilok Nath vs. Union of India 1967 SLR 759 at 764. The petitioner relied the said PR 2/96 to disprove his innocence in the enquiry. But the said document was not furnished to the petitioner to prove his innocence. This would amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend his case effectively. In Trilok Nath vs. Union of India 1967 SLR 759 at 764. It is held that it is obligatory upon the enquiry officer not only furnish the public servant concerned with a copy of the charge leveled against him, the grounds on which those charges are based and the circumstances on which it is proposed to take action against him. Further, if the public servant so requires for his defence, he has to be furnished with copies of all the relevant documents, that is, documents sought to relied on by the enquiry officer or required by the public servant for his defence. (c) The first count of the charge being that because of missing of accounts the petitioner was directed to remit the shortage amount of Rs.2,767/-(Rupees two thousand seven hundred and sixty seven only) from his salary. The same was recovered from his salary in the month of February 1997 and March 1997 and credit in the Government account by way of challan dated 24.7.1998 as per the order dated 13.2.1997. The petitioner has not objected to the same because of pressure of work. Further, whether the same was recovered after proper notice and enquiry was not established in the enquiry. In fact, the same has been recovered without proper enquiry and notice to the petitioner. When such is the position, the same cannot be termed as misappropriation in the absence of any evidence of the same. This finding by the enquiry officer is perverse. There is absolutely no evidence for the same in the enquiry except the recovery order. Merely because some amount has been recovered from the petitioner's salary and the petitioner also has not objected for the same, the same cannot be termed as misappropriation in the absence of any material evidence for the same. If any charge is framed then the same has to be proved by the prosecution based upon the material evidence. Mere acceptance or refusal by the delinquent will not absolve the prosecution from proving the same with material evidence. Therefore, the conclusion by the disciplinary authority by relying the enquiry officer's report is perverse. If any charge is framed then the same has to be proved by the prosecution based upon the material evidence. Mere acceptance or refusal by the delinquent will not absolve the prosecution from proving the same with material evidence. Therefore, the conclusion by the disciplinary authority by relying the enquiry officer's report is perverse. Consequently, the same is liable to be set aside. Further, having punished the petitioner by making recovery of the missing amount from his salary then again the petitioner cannot be charged for the same delinquency again. This would amounts to double jeopardy. For the same delinquency, the petitioner cannot be penalized twice. This is clearly against the constitutional protection under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (d) With regard to the second count of the charge, there is no misappropriation charge. It is only for not having accounted for a sum of Rs.43,343/-(Rupees forty three thousand three hundred and forty three only) properly in the UDPR. This charge is framed as per the audit conducted in the department. Had the petitioner been allowed to assist the audit parity the same would have been set right. In fact, after enquiry also, the enquiry officer clearly stated that a sum of Rs.21,162/-(Rupees twenty one thousand one hundred and sixty two only) has been accounted for as per Ex.D1. For the remaining amount of Rs.22,181/- (Rupees twenty two thousand one hundred and eighty only) the delinquent was not able to account for it. However, out of this amount, a sum of Rs.17,119/- (Rupees seventeen thousand one hundred and nineteen only) related to professional tax which might be received by means of cheque in favour of the Branch Manager for getting draft by PA to SP and it would subsequently be exchanged into draft and hence there was no chance of the delinquent to misappropriate it. But since he could not account for it, he is responsible of this amount also and for the balance of Rs.5,062/- (Rupees five thousand and sixty two only) which was not accounted for by him, related to the deduction made for payment of LIC and Co-operative society. Since the delinquent is not able to account of this amount to till date i.e., Rs.17,119 + 5,062 = Rs.22,181/- (Rupees twenty two thousand one hundred and eighty only) this amount is to be reaized from the delinquent. Since the delinquent is not able to account of this amount to till date i.e., Rs.17,119 + 5,062 = Rs.22,181/- (Rupees twenty two thousand one hundred and eighty only) this amount is to be reaized from the delinquent. Thereby, the enquiry officer has clearly stated that there is no misappropriation but there is only missing of account which was not properly accounted for. In fact, after audit in the department, the audit party in the audit notes has said that a sum of Rs.43,343/-(Rupees forty three thousand three hundred and forty three only) was not accounted for. This could have been explained to audit if the petitioner had been called upon to assist the audit party or the petitioner is given opportunity to explain the sme by furnishing the relevant records. Unfortunately, the petitioner was prevented from appearing before the auditing officials to explain the same with material documents. This resulted in remarks. For which the petitioner should not be penalized but should be given opportunity to set right the thing. But the petitioner was never given opportunity to explain with material records to set right the audit objections. The intention of the audit is for correcting the irregularities, mistakes and defects appeared in the process of maintenance of records and accounts. Such defects noticed by the audit if made good, the entire problem will be solved. The petitioner was not at all given opportunity for the same inspite of his request. The petitioner in his further representation has clearly stated that the entire missing amount has been accounted and further action taken. But the petitioner was not given opportunity to prove the same by furnishing the documents relied by him to disprove the charge. There was no finding of misappropriation in the enquiry. The disciplinary authority also has stated in his conclusion that as mentioned by the enquiry officer, this amount might have been misappropriated by the delinquent. The points raised by the petitioner in his written statement and further representation on the enquiry reported has not been properly taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. In fact, the petitioner was ready to reconcile the accounts and willing to set right the accounts. But he was not given opportunity for the same. This would amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend his case effectively. There is no allegation of misappropriation but only missing of accounts. In fact, the petitioner was ready to reconcile the accounts and willing to set right the accounts. But he was not given opportunity for the same. This would amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity to defend his case effectively. There is no allegation of misappropriation but only missing of accounts. (e) In the absence of any misappropriation of punishment awarded against the petitioner is too harsh, excessive and disproportionate to the delinquencies. Such thing had happened because of heavy cash transaction and also the predecessor failed to hand over the records properly. There is absolutely, no evidence for misappropriation. Hence the punishment is liable to be set aside. 14. The writ petition is opposed by the learned Addl. Govt. Pleader by submitting as under: That the petitioner while in service as Cashier in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Prohibition and Enforcement Wing/ Zonal office, he had misappropriated a sum of Rs.2267/- (Rupees two thousand two hundred and sixty seven only) and the same was recovered from his salary and credited to the Government account in Madurai City Police Office in Chalan No.252/97-98 dated 24.7.1997. he had also failed to disburse a sum of Rs.43,343- (Rupees forty three thousand three thousand forty three only) received on three occasions in UD Cash book as detailed below: (3) That since no expenditure shown in UDP in the said amount should have to be shown as closing balance on 23.09.1996, but he mentioned as 'Nil' the register as closing balance. Hence, the following charges have been charged against the petitioner. Charge (1) Reprehensible conduct in having misappropriated a sum of Rs.2767/-(a sum of Rs.2,207/- main cash book and Rs.506/-from Subsidiary Cash book) while he was serving as Cashier in PEW Zone, Madurai and the same amount was recovered from his salary for 2,3/97 and credited to Government in City Police Office E.Challan No.252/97-98, dated 24.7.1997. Charge (2) Reprehensible conduct in not having accounted for a huge amount of Rs.43,343/- (Rupees forty three thousand three thousand forty three only) properly in the Undisbursed Payment Register resulting to recover the same amount from the persons responsible for that while he was serving as a Cashier in PEW Zone, Madurai. It is submitted that under rule 17(b) of T.N.C.S. (D & A) Rules. It is submitted that under rule 17(b) of T.N.C.S. (D & A) Rules. The P.A. to the Superintendent of Police was appointed as enquiry officer and he had conducted oral enquiry in this regard and had drawn the minute holding the charges (1) is proved and (2) is partly proved. (4) That 4th respondent had accepted the enquiry report (minute) and awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement from service besides ordering recovery of unaccounted amount of Rs.22,181/-(Rupees twenty two thousand one hundred and eighty one only) from the petitioner. The petitioner aggrieved against the award passed by the 4th respondent had filed an appeal before the respondent No.3 and respondent No.3 also rejected the appeal vide proceedings C.No.A6/Appl/54/99 dated 9.9.1999 thereafter the petitioner have filed a review petition before the Director General of Police and the same was also rejected by the Director General of Police on the ground there is no merits in the review petition. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed a mercy petition before the Government of Tamil Nadu and the same was also rejected on 12.02.2000. Aggrieved against the orders the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner. (5) That the petitioner had submitted the representation on 5.4.99 and 13.4.1999 requesting to furnish certain documents. The said documents were also furnished to him and the same was acknowledged by him. The said acknowledgment is also recorded by the enquiry officer in his enquiry report. Hence, the contentions of the petitioner that the enquiry officer failed to consider the request and come to conclusion is also denied as false and liable to be rejected as if it has been considered by the enquiry officer. (6) That during the enquiry, the enquiry officer had recorded the statement on the following persons namely (1) Mr. Ramapadran, Superintendent, City Police office, Madurai (2) Mr. S.V enkatesan, Superintendent, F Section, District Police Office, Madurai district and also perused and marked 18 documents on the side of the prosecution. (7) The petitioner had produced a document and the same is marked as Ex.D1. Ramapadran, Superintendent, City Police office, Madurai (2) Mr. S.V enkatesan, Superintendent, F Section, District Police Office, Madurai district and also perused and marked 18 documents on the side of the prosecution. (7) The petitioner had produced a document and the same is marked as Ex.D1. It is the duty of the responsible officer each and every rupees to be accounted while taking charge of the concerned and lack of discrepancies noticed by the petitioner successors, the said fact was proper to the notice of the Director General of Police, Chennai and on the directions of the Director General of Police, the Special audit was conducted by the official auditor. At the time of audit, the petitioner also with the audit parties throughout the audit and failed to account for or produce the vouchers for the missing amounts and it is found that the said amount was misappropriated by the petitioner. Hence, necessary disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. (8) That the mere denial of the petitioner that he had not objected of misappropriated sum of Rs.2767/- (Rupees two thousand seven hundred and sixty seven only) is due to the work process cannot be accepted and liable to be dismissed. That the contention of the petitioner is that the entire amount might to be received by means of cheques by bank and subsequently exchange to be dropped and hence there was no chance of misappropriation is false and that out of the total misappropriated sum of Rs.43,343/-Rupees forty three thousand three thousand forty three only), the appellant was able to show for Rs.21,162/- (Rupees twenty one thousand one hundred and sixty two only) being professional tax amount sent to the Panchayat Union, Municipalities and Corporation of Madurai and quantum of amount was reduced sum of Rs.22,181/-(Rupees twenty two thousand one hundred and eighty one only) for which he failed to produce any record to prove. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the State therefore was that the position explained hereinabove shows that the petitioner was found guilty of the charge No.1 partly and guilty of charge No.2 on appreciation of the evidence. 16. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the State therefore was that the position explained hereinabove shows that the petitioner was found guilty of the charge No.1 partly and guilty of charge No.2 on appreciation of the evidence. 16. The finding recorded by the enquiry officer on appreciation of evidence do not call for any interference, as the finding cannot be said to be perverse, nor it can be said that non furnishing of some of the documents which was not relied upon by the enquiry officer amounts to violation of principle of natural justice. 17. On consideration, I find no force in this writ petition. Except contending that the petitioner was not supplied with the documents asked for and therefore, it amounts to violation of principle of natural justice, nothing has been pleaded or shown as to what prejudice was caused to the petitioner due to non supply of the documents asked for. 18. It is also not shown that the enquiry officer had relied upon any such documents which was not supplied to the petitioner, rather the proceedings shows that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and it is also shown that the petitioner even deposited a sum of Rs.2,767/-(Rupees two thousand seven hundred and sixty seven only) to make good the missing amount. 19. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Canara Bank vs. V.K. Awasthy [supra] therefore, has no application to the facts of the present case. It is only the documents on which reliance is placed by the enquiry officer which was required to be furnished to the petitioner and not of the documents which may not be relevant to prove the charges. 20. The learned counsel for the petitioner was not able to show as to how the documents asked for, were necessary to disprove the charges. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non supply of audit objection resulted in miscarriage of justice also cannot stand test of reasonableness. The specific charges were issued to the petitioner based on documentary evidence which was duly supported by oral evidence. This court cannot re-appraise the evidence at this stage to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the enquiry officer. 21. The specific charges were issued to the petitioner based on documentary evidence which was duly supported by oral evidence. This court cannot re-appraise the evidence at this stage to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the enquiry officer. 21. The judgment in Trilok Nath vs. Union of India (supra) has also no application to the facts of the present case, as the petitioner nowhere disputed the documents relied upon by the prosecution were not supplied to him. 22. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had remitted Rs.2,767/- (Rupees two thousand seven hundred and sixty seven only) under the pressure of work also cannot be accepted. Nor the finding of the enquiry officer can be held to be perverse as contended. The findings are based on correct appreciation of evidence oral as well as documents. 23. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that charge No.2 also deserves to be noticed to be rejected, as it is nothing but contention of re-appraisal of evidence to come to a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the enquiry officer. 24. The punishment awarded also cannot be said to be disproportionate to the proved misconduct rather after holding the petitioner guilty of misappropriation, lenient view has been taken by the department which does not call for any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No merit, dismissed. But no order as to costs.