JUDGMENT 1. This Writ petition was filed by R.Dhandapani challenging the correctness of the impugned order passed by the respondent-Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, Kuralagam, Chennai 600 008 in Board Proceedings No.71 dated 06.12.2004 confirming the earlier order passed by the same respondent-Chief Executive Officer in Na.Ka.No.48260/C3(2)/98 dated 24.9.2002, to quash the same with further direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all attendant benefits. 2. Mr. P.Rajendran, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner was working as Khadi Assistant Grade II in the Office of the Assistant Director, Khadi and Village Industries, Tiruppur, Coimbatore District, a charge memo was issued to him containing four charges by the Assistant Director of Khadi and Village Industries, Tiruppur on 3.12.1998. In the four charges, it was alleged cumulatively that the petitioner has misappropriated a total sum of Rs.59,757/-. On these charges, the petitioner submitted his explanation. The said explanation was not accepted by the disciplinary authority. The enquiry was conducted by the Assistant Director, Khadi and Village Industries, Tiruppur. On completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his report dated 27.12.1999. Thereafter, the petitioner was also furnished with a copy thereof, to submit his written representation. When the petitioner submitted his representation, the disciplinary authority erroneously finding that the enquiry officer has found the petitioner guilty of the four charges, passed the order of removal from service. The grievance of the petitioner as against the correctness of the order of removal is when the enquiry Officer has given his finding in respect of charges 1 and 4 holding the petitioner guilty, and in respect of charges 2 and 3 no negative finding was given, it goes to show that he was not found guilty of charges 2 and 3. While so, the disciplinary authority without even applying his mind to the report of the enquiry officer which does not hold him guilty of charges 2 and 3, erroneously found him guilty for all 4 charges. Therefore, aggrieved by the said order of removal when appeal was filed once again, the Chief Executive Officer who is the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order confirming his earlier order dated 24.9.2002. Therefore, aggrieved by the said order of removal when appeal was filed once again, the Chief Executive Officer who is the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order confirming his earlier order dated 24.9.2002. Therefore, the learned counsel further pleaded before this Court that when two of the charges were not found against the petitioner by the enquiry officer, initially, the disciplinary authority has wrongly held against the petitioner as though the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of all four charges. That is factually incorrect. Again, on appeal, the appellate authority has not considered any of the grounds. Even before this court, when counter was filed the respondent has not produced any sufficient proceedings passed by the appellate authority demonstrating proper application of mind by the appellate authority on the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. On this basis, the learned counsel prayed for interference with the impugned order passed by the Chief Executive Officer who not only passed the original order of removal but also by stepping into the shoes of the appellate authority, re-affirmed the order as though he is the appellate authority. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. 4. Mr. S.K. Bose, learned counsel appearing for the respondent by relying upon the counter affidavit submitted that when the petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings, he had to disprove all four charges. But the petitioner miserably failed to establish his case in respect of all the four charges. As a result, the Enquiry Officer found him guilty by submitting his report after completion of the enquiry. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority accepting the report of the enquiry officer thought fit to pass an order of removal from service since the petitioner has caused huge loss to the respondent Khadi Board during his service as Khadi Assistant-Grade II. However, an appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer. On the basis of the direction issued by the Government in letter No.15311/F1/2002-3 dated 24.5.2004 authorising Khadi Board to dispose of the appeal of the employees under ‘C’ and ‘D’ group by placing it before the Board meeting which constituted members in the rank of 4 I.A.S. officials and Minister for Khadi as President of the Board meeting, the petitioner’s appeal was placed before the 148th Board meeting held on 18.11.2004. The Board after considering the case of the petitioner rejected his appeal. Only thereafter, the Chief Executive Officer signed the order on the basis of the minutes of 148th Board meeting held on 18.11.2004, accordingly, he prayed for no interference in the impugned order. 5. (i) When the Board was presided over by the Hon’ble Minister for Khadi as the President of Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, along with four other I.A.S., Officials, a perusal of the proceeding dated 18/11/2004 shows that three I.A.S., Officials along with Financial Advisor and the Chief Accounts Officer took part in the proceedings of 148th Board meeting held on 18.11.2004. But though the subject of dismissal order passed against the petitioner was found in the proceeding, no where the Board has considered the appeal of the petitioner. Hence, this court is not able to see whether the Board has applied its mind by giving independent reasoning, particularly, when the petitioner has appealed before the Board alleging that the disciplinary authority has wrongly given a finding as against the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the petitioner was found guilty of all four charges. When two of the charges were not found against the petitioner, the argument advanced before this Court that the Board in its 148th meeting held on 18.11.2004 rightly considered the appeal of the petitioner cannot be accepted. (ii) Secondly, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent before this Court it is mentioned that the petitioner was responsible for causing loss to the respondent Khadi Board to the tune of Rs.2,74,635/-. When the charge-memo dated 3.12.98 itself says that the petitioner has caused loss to the Khadi Board amounting to Rs.59,757/-, the counter affidavit filed by the respondent cannot say that the petitioner has caused loss five times more than the amount of loss said to have been caused by him. (iii) Thirdly, the appeal of the petitioner has not been properly considered. When the appeal made by the petitioner before the Board specifically requested the board to consider his grievance that when he was not found guilty in respect of charges 2 and 3by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority cannot hold the petitioner guilty of charges 2 and 3 without giving any notice to the petitioner, besides, the appellate authority cannot dismiss his appeal without giving any specific findings thereon. This vital aspect was not considered by the Board, as a result thereof grave prejudice was caused to him. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to interfere with the order passed by the respondent for the reasoning that when the enquiry officer has given a finding in respect of charges 1 and 4 holding that the petitioner was guilty and not guilty in respect of other charges, the disciplinary authority has wrongly and erroneously found the petitioner guilty in respect of all four charges. When this was indicated to the Board by way of appeal, the Board completely lost sight of the grievance of the petitioner in appeal. The above approach of the appellate Board is wholly contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in RAM KISHAN V. UNION OF INDIA (1995) 6 SCC 157 ) wherein the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on two charges against the said Ram Kishan. The relevant portion in paragraph No.14 of the said order is extracted hereunder. "14.......The enquiry officer in his report found the first charge not proved and the second charge partly proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the conclusion reached by the enquiry officer and a show cause was issued as to why both the charges should not be taken to have been proved. While dealing with the contention that the disciplinary authority had not given any reason in the show-cause to disagree with the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer and that, therefore, the finding based on that show-cause notice was bad in law, a two-Judge Bench at p.161 observed as follows: (SCC para 10) "The purpose of the show-cause notice, in case of disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer, is to enable the delinquent to show that the disciplinary authority is persuaded not to disagree with the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer for the reasons given in the enquiry report or he may offer additional reasons in support of the finding by the enquiry officer. In that situation, unless the disciplinary authority gives specific reasons in the show cause on the basis of which the findings of the enquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer. In that situation, unless the disciplinary authority gives specific reasons in the show cause on the basis of which the findings of the enquiry officer in that behalf is based, it would be difficult for the delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to persuade the disciplinary authority to agree with the conclusions reached by the enquiry officer. In the absence of any ground or reason in the show cause notice it amounts to an empty formality which would cause grave prejudice to the delinquent officer and would result in injustice to him. The mere fact that in the final order some reasons have been given to disagree with the conclusions reached by the disciplinary authority cannot cure the defect." The above ratio clearly shows that it would obviously be necessary that the dismissing authority should expressly state that it differs from the findings recorded in the enquiry report in respect of charges 2 and 3 and then indicate the nature of the action proposed to be taken against the delinquent officer. Without such an express statement in the notice, it would be impossible to issue the notice at all. Since the above settled law has not been followed in the instant case, this Court by setting aside the order impugned herein passed by the Chief Executive Officer is inclined to allow the writ petition. 6.(i) Accordingly, W.P.No.6300/2005 is allowed by setting aside the impugned order challenged in the writ petition. (ii) Since the petitioner has not worked from date of removal from service, though by applying the principle of “No pain. No gain" the petitioner is not entitled to get back the backwages, however, by looking into alleged lapses this court deems fit to direct the respondent to pay the petitioner 50% of the backwages. (iii) Since the petitioner has retired from the services of the Khadi Board in June 2012, the retirement benefits of the petitioner shall be disposed of to him within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.