Judgment 1. The petitioner seeks for issuance of writ of certiorari filed mandamus to quash the order passed by the first respondent/Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Chennai, in RC.54292/2002/PMCT-1, dated 09.08.2002, under Section 153 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983, confirming the order of the second respondent/Additional Registrar (Special Officer), Chennai, in RC.No.1376/91/A2, dated 28.06.1999, by calling for the records connected thereto and consequently, to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages with continuity of service and with all other consequential benefits. 2. The petitioner joined the service of the second respondent Union on 15.11.1976 as Editorial Assistant. After 16 years of service, he was promoted to the post of Superintendent on 20.08.1992, and thereby, he was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superior. While so, he was forced to take leave due to the death of his wife, who was an acute Cancer patient, with prior permission from 12.09.1994 to 13.08.1996. Thereafter, he joined duty on 14.08.1996 and worked from 14.08.1996 to 31.08.1996. Again, he took leave on loss of pay for one year from 01.09.1996, as his children were upset and shocked over their mother's death. After the expiry of authorized leave for one year on loss of pay, while the petitioner reporting for duty therefore, the second respondent Union refused to accept his joining report and on that count, a charge memo dated 18.03.1998 was issued instructing to offer his explanations for the following charges: i. That the petitioner had disobeyed the instruction of the Special Officer i.e., second respondent. ii. That the petitioner was negligent in attending to his duties regularly. iii. That the petitioner was responsible for arrears in collection of funds due to the Union. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner has submitted his explanations denying all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, when the enquiry officer was appointed, the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry and for which, he has also sent his representation dated 09.02.1998 to the Enquiry Officer requesting for two months time for attending the enquiry. But, inspite of his representation, the Enquiry Officer, who was the counsel for the second respondent Union, proceeded to conduct the enquiry exparte and thereby concluded the enquiry on 06.02.1999. Based on the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the second respondent dismissed the petitioner from service. But, inspite of his representation, the Enquiry Officer, who was the counsel for the second respondent Union, proceeded to conduct the enquiry exparte and thereby concluded the enquiry on 06.02.1999. Based on the report submitted by the enquiry officer, the second respondent dismissed the petitioner from service. As against the order of dismissal, he preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Union, Chennai. But, he did not receive any reply from the Board of Directors, therefore, he filed a revision petition before the first respondent, wherein his revision petition was dismissed only on the ground that his appeal preferred before the Board of Directors is still pending. Aggrieved by the same, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5907 of 2002 before this Court seeking a direction to the first respondent to entertain the revision petition. This Court, by order dated 20.03.2002, directed the first respondent to entertain the revision petition preferred by the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent passed the impugned order dated 09.08.2002, confirming the dismissal order passed by the second respondent Union. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that even though the petitioner had sent his representation dated 09.12.1998 requesting extension of two months time, the enquiry officer ignored his plea and concluded the enquiry violating the principles of natural justice, for, before the conclusion of enquiry report, he was not given reasonable opportunity to defend his case. Further, it was submitted that the enquiry officer appointed by the disciplinary authority was the counsel for the second respondent and represented their cases before the first respondent, therefore, by appointing their own counsel who represented their cases before the first respondent, the second respondent Union violated the rules of natural justice, inasmuch as the law requires the enquiry officer should be independent of the Union and to that effect, he relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Indian Refrigeration Industries v. Ram Rattan Sharma and others (2006-II-LL (Delhi) 1103). 4. 4. He further submitted that the first respondent failed to see the past record of the petitioner, who rendered 19 years of unblemished service and he pleaded that though the alleged misconducted was relating to the period from 05.09.1994 to 31.08.1996, the charge memo was issued only after three years i.e., on 18.03.1998, without explaining the delay for issuing the charge memo and without even enclosing proper document to withstand the charges levelled against him, which is fatal to the enquiry proceedings. On that basis, he prayed for setting aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent, by filing a detailed counter, submitted that when the petitioner repeatedly absented himself from duty as Superintendent, who was incharge of demand, collection and maintenance of the Cooperative Research, Development Fund and Cooperative Education Fund, the second respondent suffered heavy loss in view of his frequent absent from duty and for not collecting a huge revenue. Therefore, when there was a dislocation of work in the important section controlled by the petitioner, he was also informed in Memo No.1376/91 A2, dated 01.07.1996 that the leave applied by him could not be sanctioned for want of eligibility. In spite of the memo issued to him, he applied for further leave on loss of pay on personal grounds, but again, that was also not sanctioned by the Union. Finally, finding that the petitioner was willfully hiding to report for duty, the second respondent Union issued a charge memo dated 18.03.1998 and thereafter, when the enquiry officer was appointed, he did not even attend the enquiry and he repeatedly sought extension of time to appear before them, therefore, the enquiry officer was constrained to pass an exparte enquiry report. On that basis, he further submitted that the enquiry has been held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, therefore, he requested this Court to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 18.03.1998 for his frequent absenteeism and for which, an exparte enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer, who was admittedly their counsel represented before the first respondent. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 7. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was issued with a charge memo dated 18.03.1998 for his frequent absenteeism and for which, an exparte enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer, who was admittedly their counsel represented before the first respondent. In this context, it is pertinent to refer to a judgment in Indian Refrigeration Industries (cited supra), wherein the Delhi High Court held thus in para 8: "8. In our opinion, this clearly shows bias because if any Inquiry Officer himself appears as the advocate for the management in the reference against the termination of service based on the inquiry which he had himself held, this obviously shows bias. This is just like a Trial Court Judge who convicts an accused and then appears as a counsel for the prosecution in the appeal against the conviction." Admittedly, in this present case also, as stated above, the second respondent Union appointed an enquiry officer, who was their counsel to represent before the first respondent to defend their case. As such, the approach of the respondents obviously shows bias and violation of principles of natural justice. 8. Further, the second respondent, upon receiving the report of the enquiry officer as well as the written representation from the petitioner, should have, in my considered opinion, taken into account the petitioner's 19 years of unblemished continuous service, which he rendered without any complaints. Again, the second respondent failed to take into account the veracity of the leave taken by the petitioner, as he took leave only due his wife's death, who suffered cancer and thereafter, again he took leave to take care of his children, who were upset and deeply shocked over their mother's death. Further, in a similar circumstances, one Tmt. R.Vijayalakshmi, former Senior Assistant of second respondent Union, also having been dealt with for the same charge of unauthorised absence for more than 3 years during her service, the same respondent has taken a lenient view while considering the revision petition by re-appointing her in RC.No.9589 of 91/A1, dated 26.02.1993. Therefore, the respondent Union cannot discriminate the petitioner in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the respondent Union cannot discriminate the petitioner in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Hence, by looking at the case of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned orders passed by the respondents in so far it relates to the imposition of penalty of dismissal from service by substituting with the penalty of compulsory retirement, as though he has put in 20 years of service and for which, learned counsel for the petitioner also has accepted. 9. In result, the writ petition is disposed of and the impugned punishment is modified to the extent indicated above. It is also made it clear that the petitioner is entitled to get the service benefits, as though he compulsorily retired from service and this exercise shall be carried out within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order. No Costs.