JUDGMENT M.Venugopal 1. The Appellant / Petitioner has projected this Writ Appeal as against the order of the Learned single Judge dated 26.02.2010 in W.P.No.25665/2006. 2. The Appellant / Petitioner joined as a Typist (appointed through TNPSC) on 28.05.1990. During the year 2001, while he was working in the office of the Director General of Prison, Chennai, he was stated to be of ill-health. On 18.07.2001, he was transferred and posted to the Central Prison at Coimbatore. Therefore, he applied for leave from 15.10.2001 to 05.02.2002 in different short spells,. Thereafter, again from 03.04.2002 to 05.04.2002, he applied for leave. Subsequently, he remained absent from 06.04.2002, without applying for leave. A Charge Memo as per Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, was issued by the Fourth Respondent on 09.05.2002. 3. The allegation against the Appellant / Petitioner was that, he unauthorisedly absented himself from duty from 06.04.2002. It is not in dispute that the Charge Memo was served on the Appellant / Petitioner on 23.05.2002. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and an ex parte enquiry was conducted on 06.09.2002. In the ex parte enquiry, it was held that the charge levelled against the Appellant / Petitioner was proved. 4. The case of the Appellant / Petitioner is that, enquiry was not conducted as per the procedures established by law and therefore, the findings of the Enquiry Officer are arbitrary and illegal. Based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, explanation was called for from the Appellant / Petitioner on 27.09.2002. A detailed explanation was submitted by the Appellant / Petitioner on 13.10.2002. Thereafter, the Fourth Respondent passed a final order on 23.10.2002, inflicting the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service on the Appellant / Petitioner. As against the said order, an Appeal was filed by the Appellant / Petitioner before the Third Respondent on 26.11.2002 and the Third Respondent, while dismissing the said Appeal by order dated 13.09.2003, confirmed the punishment inflicted on the Appellant / Petitioner. The Appellant / Petitioner filed a Review Petition as against the said order on 17.10.2003 before the Second Respondent, who rejected the same on 13.01.2004. Thereafter, the Appellant / Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the First Respondent on 05.03.2004, which was also rejected. 5. The Appellant / Petitioner filed a Review Petition as against the said order on 17.10.2003 before the Second Respondent, who rejected the same on 13.01.2004. Thereafter, the Appellant / Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the First Respondent on 05.03.2004, which was also rejected. 5. The main contention raised on behalf of the Appellant / Petitioner before this Court is that, the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service inflicted upon the Appellant /Petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, is not proportionate to the charge framed against him. 6. The Principle of Natural Justice is that "Audi Alteram Partem" i.e., hear the other party. It is said that God followed this rule while he punished Adam by asking him as to why he ate the forbidden fruit. As a matter of fact, "Natural Justice" is a concept and its principles are not the edicts of a statute. After all, the ingredients of fair hearing are (1) Prior Notice (2) Right to make representation (3) Right to be heard. Moreover, fairness of procedure in all State actions is the hall mark of legality 7. The materials available on record, unerringly point out that the Appellant / Petitioner unauthorisedly absented himself from duty on different occasions, ranging from 15.10.2001 to 05.04.2002 and from 06.04.2002, he again absented himself from duty. The Charge Memo was issued by the Fourth Respondent on 09.05.2002 as per the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules and it was served on the Appellant / Petitioner on 23.05.2002. Enquiry Officer was appointed and he conducted the Enquiry on 06.09.2002. The Appellant / Petitioner had not participated in the Enquiry. Therefore, based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the Appellant / Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service by the Fourth Respondent by order dated 23.10.2002. The Appeal filed by the Appellant / Petitioner before the Third Respondent on 26.11.2002 was dismissed on 13.09.2003. The Review Petition dated 17.10.2003 filed by the Appellant / Petitioner before the Second Respondent was also dismissed on 13.01.2004. Not satisfied with that, the Appellant / Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the First Respondent on 05.03.2004, which was also rejected on 18.08.2005. The Review Petition dated 17.10.2003 filed by the Appellant / Petitioner before the Second Respondent was also dismissed on 13.01.2004. Not satisfied with that, the Appellant / Petitioner filed a Revision Petition before the First Respondent on 05.03.2004, which was also rejected on 18.08.2005. Therefore, it is clear that the Appellant / Petitioner was provided with reasonable and adequate opportunity to contest the proceeding and in spite of the same, he had failed to submit his explanation to the Charge Memo issued to him. Further, he had not taken part in the oral enquiry on the dates determined by the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer was left with no other option except to adhere to the procedures with regard to conduct of Domestic Enquiry and to submit his findings. 8. The Appellant / Petitioner was provided with opportunity to submit his representation with regard to the findings given by the Enquiry Officer and after considering the representation dated 13.10.2002 submitted by the Appellant / Petitioner, the Authority concerned, on being dissatisfied with the same, awarded the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service as per the proceedings of the Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore / Fourth Respondent dated 23.10.2002. 9. As against the said order of the Fourth Respondent, the Appellant / Petitioner filed an Appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Prisons, Coimbatore Range, stating that, he was not provided with reasonable opportunity to defend his case. On going through the entire materials available on record and on an overall assessment of the facts and circumstances of the case in an integral fashion, we are of the considered view that the Appellant / Petitioner was given reasonable and adequate opportunity to submit his explanation to the Charge Memo issued to him. But the Appellant / Petitioner, had failed to avail the same in a realistic and proper manner by not taking part in the Domestic Enquiry. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer was left with no other option but to conduct an ex- parte Enquiry as per Rules and to give his findings, which was later on accepted and the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service was inflicted upon the Appellant / Petitioner, which cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer was left with no other option but to conduct an ex- parte Enquiry as per Rules and to give his findings, which was later on accepted and the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service was inflicted upon the Appellant / Petitioner, which cannot be said to be excessive or arbitrary. Per contra, the punishment of Compulsory Retirement from service imposed upon the Appellant / Petitioner is proper and based on the materials available on record and as such, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Learned single Judge in dismissing the Writ Petition, thereby confirming the findings of the Enquiry Officer and other Authorities concerned. It also comes to be known that the wife of the Appellant (since expired) has been paid all the pensionary benefits as per Letter No.P.33/2/DAR/2010-11/23304318/PPO dated 18.05.2011. Consequently, the Writ Appeal fails. 10. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.