JUDGMENT C.K. Abdul Rehim, J. 1. The petitioner while working as an Abkari Worker under the 1st respondent Corporation was issued with Ext.P3 'Memo of Charges' and 'statement of allegations', alleging misconduct. The charges levelled were that, the petitioner had applied for passport without obtaining permission from the Corporation and in the application for passport he had concealed his employment in the Corporation and shown his occupation as "businessman". Further allegation is that he made a foreign visit to Dubai from 08.01.2008 to 23.01.2008 on availing leave showing the reason as "personal". By getting passport without obtaining permission through misrepresentation about his employment and by visiting a foreign country without obtaining sanction by misrepresentation of the purpose of leave availed, the petitioner had committed misconduct, is the charge. 2. The petitioner submitted Ext.P4 explanations stating that, the application for passport was prepared by an agent and the occupation was written as businessman without his knowledge. According to the petitioner, it was only to mean that he was employed in a business concern. With respect to the charge of foreign visit, it is stated that 2 brothers of the petitioner are working in Dubai and one of met with an accident and hospitalised. On getting information about this he had gone urgently to Dubai, only for taking care of the injured. According to the petitioner it was only under an impression that if leave is sought for to go abroad it will not be sanctioned soon, that the reason was shown as 'personal', on the advise of some co-workers. What was intended is that, the leave is not applied for in connection with official duties. In the explanation it is specifically stated that it was only due to ignorance and ill- advise of co-workers that such mistakes were committed. In the explanation the petitioner had sought for pardon and to drop further steps on accepting such explanations. 3. On receipt of Ext.P4 explanations, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P5 show cause notice intimating the proposal to impose punishment of removal from service stating that the petitioner had conceded all the allegations in the Charge Memo. The petitioner submitted explanations as per Ext.P6. The objections mentioned in the explanations to the Memo of Charges were reiterated. 3. On receipt of Ext.P4 explanations, the 3rd respondent issued Ext.P5 show cause notice intimating the proposal to impose punishment of removal from service stating that the petitioner had conceded all the allegations in the Charge Memo. The petitioner submitted explanations as per Ext.P6. The objections mentioned in the explanations to the Memo of Charges were reiterated. It is stated that the mistake happened only due to ignorance since the petitioner had educational qualification only up to S.S.L.C. He sought for pardon on the assurance that such mistake will not be repeated, and requested to drop the punishment proposed. 4. But discarding the explanations submitted, Ext.P7 proceedings was issued by the 3rd respondent stating that the allegations stands proved on the basis of the reply submitted. It is mentioned that, since the explanations were not satisfactory, the punishment proposed is to be imposed. In Ext.P7 it is mentioned that misconduct as enumerated under Rule 82 (15), (48), (65), (67), (74) of the Kerala State Beverages (Manufacturing and Marketing) Corporation Ltd., Employees Service Rules, 1986 (Ext.P2 Rules) stands proved and therefore the petitioner is dismissed from service as per Rule 83(X) of the said Rules. 5. Aggrieved by Ext.P7 the petitioner preferred appeal before the 1st respondent Board. Through Ext.P9 he was intimated that the Board had rejected the appeal in its meeting held on 28.03.2009. The petitioner had obtained copy of the minutes of the Board meeting concerned, which is produced as Ext.P12. It is mentioned in Ext.P12 that in the disciplinary proceedings the petitioner had admitted the charges, but stated that the lapses occurred only due to his ignorance of the Rules. Contention of the petitioner that he was removed from service without conducting a domestic enquiry as required under Rule 87 and in denial of natural justice, has been negatived observing that due enquiry was conducted and there was no denial of natural justice. The Board observed that it did not find merit for further consideration of the matter. It is aggrieved by the order of removal from service, which is confirmed by the appellate Board, this writ petition is filed. 6. Contention of the petitioner is two folded. One is the charges alleged will not fall within the ambit and scope of 'misconduct' enumerated various sub rules in Rule 82 of Ext.P2. It is aggrieved by the order of removal from service, which is confirmed by the appellate Board, this writ petition is filed. 6. Contention of the petitioner is two folded. One is the charges alleged will not fall within the ambit and scope of 'misconduct' enumerated various sub rules in Rule 82 of Ext.P2. Further contention is that, major penalty of removal from service was imposed without conducting domestic enquiry as required under Rule 87. Learned counsel for the petitioner had drawn my attention to sub Rules 1 to 74 of Rule 82. Nowhere it is mentioned that obtaining passport without permission of the Corporation or furnishing a wrong information in the application for passport will amount to a misconduct. So also visiting a foreign country without permission of the Corporation or availing leave on furnishing a wrong reason will fall within the purview of misconduct enumerated. Hence contention is that, even assuming that the allegations were admitted, it will not amount to any misconduct for which a punishment can be imposed under the special Rules. 7. Per contra, standing counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that, under Rule 8 it is specified that, with respect to matters which are not covered by the Rules, similar rules in the Government service shall be followed. According to the standing counsel, obtaining passport and visiting a foreign country without permission as well as furnishing false information for obtaining passport and availing leave mentioning wrong reason, will amount to violation of the Conduct Rules which are applicable to employees of the State Government. Hence by virtue of Rule 8 the disciplinary action initiated is sustainable, is the contention. 8. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner that, removal from service is a major penalty provided under Rule 83. As per Rule 87 the procedure for imposing major penalty is provided. It is specifically mentioned that; "On receipt of written statement of defence or if no written statement is received within the time allowed to the employee to file it, the disciplinary authority will in cases where the explanation is not considered satisfactory or where no explanation is received, cause a domestic enquiry to be conducted into the charges and allegations. It is specifically mentioned that; "On receipt of written statement of defence or if no written statement is received within the time allowed to the employee to file it, the disciplinary authority will in cases where the explanation is not considered satisfactory or where no explanation is received, cause a domestic enquiry to be conducted into the charges and allegations. For purposes of conducting the domestic enquiry the appointing authority may appoint an enquiry officer, and if considered necessary also an employee of the Corporation to assist the Enquiry officer and to present the case against the delinquent." Contention is that, since no domestic enquiry mandated under the service rules was conducted before imposition of major penalty of dismissal from service, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is evident from records that, after receipt of explanations to the charge Memo of Charges, the 3rd respondent straight a way proceeded to issue show cause notice intimating the proposal for penalty. No domestic enquiry as required under Rule 87 was conducted. Standing counsel appearing for the Corporation submitted that, domestic enquiry is required only in cases where the charges are denied. According to him, in the explanation submitted by the petitioner all the 3 specific charges were admitted and he had requested for pardon on the basis that it is only due to his ignorance and ill-advice that such mistakes were committed. But on a perusal of Ext.P4, I cannot agree with such a contention. Eventhough the petitioner had stated that the mistakes happened due to his ignorance, he had specifically pleaded to exonerate from any punishment and requested to drop the proposed proceedings. Further, in the explanations submitted to the show cause (Ext.P6) he had reiterated the contentions on the basis that he is a person having educational qualification only upto S.S.L.C and it is due to his ignorance that latches if any had occurred. He had undertaken that such things will not be repeated in future and requested to refrain from imposing the punishment proposed. Contents of the explanations will clearly indicate that he had never conceded for the disciplinary proceedings. All along he requested for exoneration and for dropping the proceedings. In such context the authority was not justified in imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service, without conducting any domestic enquiry. Contents of the explanations will clearly indicate that he had never conceded for the disciplinary proceedings. All along he requested for exoneration and for dropping the proceedings. In such context the authority was not justified in imposing a major penalty of dismissal from service, without conducting any domestic enquiry. The domestic enquiry contemplated under Rule 87 is mandatory whenever there is imposition of any major penalty. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pandit D. Aher v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 1 SCC 445 in order to contend that finding of misconduct is an essential ingredient for imposition of major penalty. It is contended that none of the allegations will constitute misconduct as enumerated under the Service Rules. In answer to the contention, on behalf of the respondent, applicability of the Conduct Rules of the Government employees is canvassed. It is argued that any provision of general nature which is not specific with respect to the nature of the misconduct, cannot be made use of for the purpose of imposing grave punishments. Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd. (1984) 3 SCC 316 is relied on in this regard. It is held that general expectations of a certain decent beheaviour in respect of employees keeping in view Corporation culture, may be a moral or ethical expectation. The failure to keep such high standard of moral, ethical or decorous beheaviour befitting an officer of the company by itself cannot constitute misconduct unless the specific conduct falls in any of the enumerated misconduct in the relevant Rules. Since 74 distinct items of misconduct are enumerated in Rule 83, no punishment can be imposed on the basis of violation of conduct rules applicable to the Government employees, is the contention. 10. While considering the rival contentions I am of the view that, the order imposing penalty is vitiated by a grave procedural irregularity of non-conduct of domestic enquiry. Therefore I am of the opinion that the matter need be remitted for compliance of proper procedure. Under such context is not necessary for this court to arrive at any conclusion as to whether the allegations contained in the charge memo will constitute misconduct coming within the purview of the Service Rules. Hence I am leaving open such contention for agitation before the disciplinary authority. Under such context is not necessary for this court to arrive at any conclusion as to whether the allegations contained in the charge memo will constitute misconduct coming within the purview of the Service Rules. Hence I am leaving open such contention for agitation before the disciplinary authority. 11. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P7 which is confirmed in appeal through Ext.P12 is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith on receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is made clear that the respondents will free to proceed further with disciplinary action after conducting proper domestic enquiry as contemplated under Rule 87, if they propose to impose any major penalty on the basis of the Memo of Charges issued. Such disciplinary enquiry shall be proceeded on the basis of Ext.P4 explanations submitted by the petitioner to the Memo of Charges. Needless to observe that the petitioner shall be given all reasonable opportunity to participate in the domestic enquiry as contemplated under Rule 87 of the special rules. 12. It is further directed that domestic enquiry if any shall be finalised at the earliest, at any rate within a period of 4 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. It is observed that regularisation of the period during which the petitioner was kept out of service shall be decided depending on the outcome of the domestic enquiry and penalty if any imposed, and specific decision shall be taken in that respect.