Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging an order dated 01.10.2010 passed by the first respondent imposing penalty of censure on the petitioner who was working as a Section Officer. It is stated that the punishment has been given in terms of statute No.19(1)(a)(i) of the Service Statutes of the Establishment of the Tamil Nadu Dr.M.G.R. Medical University. 2. The writ petition initially when it came up on 11.11.2010, notice of motion was ordered. Subsequently on 17.2.2012, it was admitted. Pending the writ petition, this court declined to grant any interim relief and dismissed the stay application filed in M.P.No.2 of 2010. On notice from this court, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit, dated 8.4.2011. 3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner is working as a Superintendent in the respondent University. She initially joined as a Stenographer on 10.11.1989 and subsequently was promoted on 27.7.1992 as an Assistant and thereafter as a Superintendent on 6.6.2005. The claim of the petitioner was that there was no disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. The petitioner claimed that she is entitled to be promoted as an Assistant Registrar as she had already put in service of not less than five years in the post of the Superintendent. She was given a memo, dated 23.3.2009 stating that she had signed the attendance register on 09.03.2009, 11.03.2009, 12.03.2009 and 16.03.2009 as well as late attendance register on 13.3.2009. She had not intimated the university about her leaving the office and she did not get permission from the superiors. Hence it was stated that her conduct was irregular and against the statutory rules. The petitioner gave her explanation questioning the credentials of issuance of the memo. Though she was the Superintendent in the library section, no proper infrastructure has been given in the library. On 26.01.2009, her mother expired at Tirunelveli. The said date was a holiday and she had to attend her mother's funeral. She also has a daughter who was hospitalized. She was affected with Leptospirosis during the month of November and December, 2008. It was diagnosed as viral fever and thereafter as Typhoid and finally as Leptospirosis. She was admitted in the hospital for treatment. All these details were intimated to her immediate superior, who was a librarian at that time. She also has a daughter who was hospitalized. She was affected with Leptospirosis during the month of November and December, 2008. It was diagnosed as viral fever and thereafter as Typhoid and finally as Leptospirosis. She was admitted in the hospital for treatment. All these details were intimated to her immediate superior, who was a librarian at that time. Her leave was recommended by the Librarian and the establishment section also had sanctioned the leave. She also provoked by giving all kinds of other reasons in the explanation. It was stated that by memo, dated 26.5.2009, he explanation was not proper and not related to the charges levelled against her. The petitioner sent a further reply on 1.6.2009. 4. The petitioner was further given a memo dated 8.3.2010 stating that she had refused to put up/ receive the under office note sent to the section. She was asked to explain her conduct. The petitioner sent a reply dated 22.3.2010 stating that she did all typing works and did routine work. She had attended all filings in the department. The allegations were made without any basis. Once again a further memo, dated 21.7.2010 was given alleging the same charges which are set out in the memo dated 23.3.2009. It was also added that she was not obliged to any instructions given by the department. She had disturbed the harmony of the department by using abusive words against other staff members. The memo given on 21.7.2010 is the combination of memos dated 23.3.2009 and 8.3.2010. After explanation was given, a further memo dated 10.8.2010 was given stating as to why an action should not be taken against her in terms of the Statute 19(1)(a) of the Service Statutes of the university and appropriate penalty should not be imposed on her. She gave an explanation dated 16.8.2010. 5. The first respondent Vice Chancellor by an order dated 9.9.2010 had appointed the Additional Secretary to Government (Retired) by name L.Chelladurai as an enquiry officer to enquire into the charges against the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to appear for the enquiry on 15.9.2010. Subsequently, the enquiry was held on 23.9.2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's name was included in the regular panel for promotion to the post of the Assistant Registrar and her name was kept first in the list of the panel by memo, dated 20.9.2010. The petitioner was directed to appear for the enquiry on 15.9.2010. Subsequently, the enquiry was held on 23.9.2010. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's name was included in the regular panel for promotion to the post of the Assistant Registrar and her name was kept first in the list of the panel by memo, dated 20.9.2010. However, by the impugned order dated 01.10.2010, the petitioner was informed that she had singed the attendance register and thereafter left the office. The Professor and the Head of the Department of Transfusion Medicine had made a complaint against her that she had not obliged any instructions. The reply given by her was irrelevant to the explanation called for. Therefore, the matter was placed before the Governing council for initiating disciplinary action against her. The Governing Council by a resolution No.26 in its 198th Meeting held on 14.7.2010 had resolved to take disciplinary action against her. The enquiry officer who was appointed found that the charges were proved. Therefore, it was decided to issue penalty of censure against the petitioner. Hence a minor penalty of censure was given to her by the impugned order. Challenging the same, the writ petition came to be filed. 6. The contentions raised by the petitioner was that the proceedings were initiated to stop her getting promoted to the post of Assistant Registrar. The enquiry officer did not furnish any documents as required in her representation. The findings of the enquiry officer was also not given to her. 7. In the counter affidavit, it was stated that several opportunities were given to the petitioner. She had also signed the minutes of the enquiry. The enquiry officer found the charges levelled against her were proved. Therefore, on the proved charges, a minor penalty was imposed. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the minor penalty by an appeal dated 21.10.2010. The fact of filing an appeal was not disclosed. On the contrary, in paragraph 13 of the affidavit, the petitioner had stated that there is no appeal provided under the statute. Hence she has filed the writ petition. It is contrary to the fact of her filing an appeal before the Executive Council. It was disposed of by an order dated 10.11.2010. 8. Under the statute No.19(2)(a), all the service statutes of the University clearly provide for an appeal in terms of Appendix IV. Hence she has filed the writ petition. It is contrary to the fact of her filing an appeal before the Executive Council. It was disposed of by an order dated 10.11.2010. 8. Under the statute No.19(2)(a), all the service statutes of the University clearly provide for an appeal in terms of Appendix IV. In respect of minor penalties for Group A officers, the penalty can be imposed by the Vice Chancellor and the appellate authority is the Governing Council. The statute also provides power to an appellate authority to condone delay if any. Therefore, it was wrong on the part of the petitioner to state that no such provision for appeal and hence she has moved the court. On the contrary, she has filed the appeal which was rejected by the Governing Council on 10.11.2010. Though she filed the writ petition on 03.11.2010 and she may not be aware of the outcome of her appeal, but nothing prevented her from stating that she has preferred an appeal dated 21.10.2010. This was very much in the knowledge of the petitioner. Hence the writ petition is deserved to be dismissed on the short ground of suppressing the material fact and making false statement before the court. 9. Even otherwise the contention of the petitioner was that before imposing the penalty, no opportunity was given. The counsel for the petitioner Ms.R.T.Shymala relied upon the service statute, more particularly statute No.19(2)(g). The same reads as follows: "(g) Imposing Minor and Major Penalties :Before imposing any of the minor penalties, the delinquent employee shall be given an opportunity to explain his position. Before inflicting any of the major penalties, the default of the delinquent employe shall be reduced to a form of charge or charges together with the grounds for the charges and served on him. He shall be required to state whether he requires an oral enquiry or a personal hearing or both and he shall be supplied with a form of questionnaire for his purpose. The details of witnesses to be examined in support of the charges should also be sent to him along with the charge memorandum. He shall be required to state whether he requires an oral enquiry or a personal hearing or both and he shall be supplied with a form of questionnaire for his purpose. The details of witnesses to be examined in support of the charges should also be sent to him along with the charge memorandum. On receipt of the statement of the defence from the delinquent, an oral enquiry or a personnel hearing or both as desired by the delinquent has to be conducted by appointing an Enquiry Officer who shall record the proceedings of the enquiry and submit his report of enquiry indicating whether the charge stands proved or not. The disciplinary authority, after examining the said report and all other relevant documents shall decide the case and pass final orders." (Emphasis added) 10. According to the counsel for the petitioner, before imposing a penalty, the delinquent employee should be given an opportunity and no opportunity was given to her before imposing the penalty. This is misreading of the said provision. The provisions under the statute 19(2)(g) deals with the procedure for taking disciplinary action for imposing major or minor penalties. It does not contemplate an opportunity as projected by the petitioner, i.e., even after conducting an enquiry, a further opportunity on the penalty should be given. 11. First of all, an opportunity for the second show cause notice on the penalty has to be found in the rules. After the 42nd amendment to the Constitution, even for persons holding civil posts protected by Article 311(2), the requirement of a second show cause notice was removed. When the same was challenged before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court vide its judgment (Union of India and another v. Tulsiram Patel reported in (1985) 3 SCC 398 ) has upheld the validity of the amendment. It was held that providing of a second show cause notice on penalty was not a part of the reasonable opportunity contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The petitioner cannot read something into the provisions and claim a new right. The respondents have clearly taken the stand that it was only on the basis of the enquiry report which found her guilty, the minor penalty was given. 12. The petitioner cannot read something into the provisions and claim a new right. The respondents have clearly taken the stand that it was only on the basis of the enquiry report which found her guilty, the minor penalty was given. 12. Though the petitioner could have had justifiable reason on some occasions for leaving the work spot, i.e, due to death of her mother or that her child was ill, but nothing prevented her from informing the authorities before doing so. Even in her explanation, she has not stated as to which authority she had informed in advance about her leaving the work spot. That material was also not produced in the enquiry on her side. Considering that it was only a minor penalty, which was preceded by a full-fledged enquiry in which evidence was recorded, this court is not inclined to interfere with a minor penalty (i.e., censure) imposed by the respondents university. 13. In this context, it is necessary to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in V.S.P. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu reported in (2008) 5 SCC 569 and in paragraphs 20 and 21 it was observed as follows : "20.) The jurisdiction of the High Court in this regard is rather limited. Its power to interfere with disciplinary matters is circumscribed by well-known factors. It cannot set aside a well-reasoned order only on sympathy or sentiments. (See Maruti Udyog Ltd. v. Ram Lal; State of Bihar v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra; SBI v. Mahatma Mishra; State of Karnataka v. Ameerbi; State of M.P. v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd. v. Surji Dev.) 21.) Once it is found that all the procedural requirements have been complied with, the courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. The superior courts only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality. If the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the jurisdiction would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India.” 14. Further, the Supreme Court has held vide its judgment in Praveen Bhatia v. Union of India reported in (2009) 4 SCC 225 that judicial review over interference with the penalty is extremely limited when relevant factors are taking into account by the authority concerned. 15. (See Sangfroid Remedies Ltd. v. Union of India.” 14. Further, the Supreme Court has held vide its judgment in Praveen Bhatia v. Union of India reported in (2009) 4 SCC 225 that judicial review over interference with the penalty is extremely limited when relevant factors are taking into account by the authority concerned. 15. In view of the above, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.