JUDGMENT : 1. The prayer sought for in this writ petition is for a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the impugned order of the 2nd respondent dated 18.01.2007 issued in Ref. 2210/”TAMIL”/2007 and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in the service together with back wages and all the attendant benefits. 2. The necessary facts, which are required to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition, are as follows: The petitioner joined in the service as Assistant in the respondent University in December 2003. She worked continuously till her service was terminated on 18.01.2007. When the petitioner was serving as Assistant at the respondent University, a charge memo dated 19.04.2006 was served on her making the allegations that the internal marks have been interchanged for BBA course, 4th semester students in Jeyaraj Annapackiyam College; failed students were made to pass through alterations and the marks of 179 students were altered. Based on the said charges, enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was concluded, where the petitioner was found guilty, based on which, the 2nd respondent had inflicted the punishment of removal of service against the petitioner with effect from 18.01.2007. Challenging the said order with punishment of removal from service, the petitioner has moved this Court with the present writ petition with the aforesaid prayer. 3. Heard Mr.B.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.S.Srimathy, Special Government Pleader, for the first respondent and Mr.Palaramasamy, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. 4. Mr.B.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that, though a charge memo was served on the petitioner, where as per Annexure I to the charge memo, 5 charges were framed and the statement of allegations also had been made, in Annexure III in the list of documents to be relied upon, it has been only mentioned the letter received from the Controller of Examination dated 30.12.2005, which means, except the said letter, no document was to be relied upon by the University before the Enquiry Officer. This is totally against the procedure to conduct the departmental proceedings that too towards awarding major punishment of removal of service. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the complaint was made only by the then Controller of Examinations on 30.12.2005. This is totally against the procedure to conduct the departmental proceedings that too towards awarding major punishment of removal of service. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that, the complaint was made only by the then Controller of Examinations on 30.12.2005. The very same Controller of Examinations had subsequently become Registrar (in-charge) of the University, with that capacity, she constituted an enquiry committee and she also issued a charge memo and in the said enquiry committee the very same Registrar in-charge was part of the committee, as she was one among the three members in the enquiry panel and the said enquiry panel had recorded the proceedings that the enquiry committee had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was found guilty. However, thereafter, on realizing the mistake that the Registrar in-charge, who was the complainant herself, had become the member of the enquiry committee, which was constituted by herself, as no one can be the judge of their own cause, the respondent University decided to conduct a second enquiry and in the second enquiry also, no other documents were relied upon by the University and merely on the basis of the documents submitted by the University to the enquiry committee, the enquiry committee had come to the conclusion that the petitioner was found guilty and based on which, the same had been referred to the second respondent i.e., Vice Chancellor of the University, who, in turn, after getting approval from the executive committee of the University, who is the appellate body, had inflicted the punishment through the impugned order dated 18.01.2007, by which, the petitioner had been removed from service. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that there were number of technical flaws and infirmities through out the enquiry proceedings right from the framing of charges till the final order passed and those flaws certainly would vitiate the entire disciplinary proceedings made against the petitioner. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also has pointed out that in the second enquiry report, the very enquiry committee headed by the Chairman had recommended to the disciplinary authority that the petitioner can be inflicted with the maximum punishment of termination of service. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also has pointed out that in the second enquiry report, the very enquiry committee headed by the Chairman had recommended to the disciplinary authority that the petitioner can be inflicted with the maximum punishment of termination of service. According to the learned counsel, it is the settled legal proposition that enquiry authority/committee shall not recommend any punishment to the disciplinary authority as the decision with regard to the quantum of punishment has to be made only by the disciplinary authority and the disciplinary authority alone, where the enquiry committee or authority has no role to play. Therefore, the recommendations made by the enquiry committee to the disciplinary authority, recommending the maximum punishment of termination of service to be inflicted on the petitioner, certainly would vitiate the entire punishment made against the petitioner and therefore, on that ground also, the impugned punishment has to be interfered with. 8. I have heard Mr.B.Pugalendhi, learned Additional Advocate General, who appeared for the respondent University, who would submit that the petitioner as an Assistant, had been in-charge of marks statement of three Colleges and it was found that the mark statements/tabulation in respect of more than 200 students of the three Colleges have been tampered with, as failed candidates had been given more marks and those, who got higher marks had been given lesser marks and this kind of mal practice, since was noticed by the University through the Controller of Examinations, who, immediately made a complaint to the Registrar of the University and based on which, explanation was called for from the petitioner, who, in turn, having accepted her misdeed and guilt, has given a letter on 03.01.2006. 9. The learned Additional Advocate General would also submit that, thereafter at every stage whenever explanation is called for i.e., at the time of framing charges and giving the copy of the charge memo to the petitioner and also after completing enquiry and on supplying the enquiry report to the petitioner, in every such occasion, the petitioner had been taking consistent stand that she alone committed those misdeeds. Even after the second enquiry, when the second chance was given to the petitioner, the petitioner had given a detailed reply accepting the misdeeds as well as the guilt on her part and therefore, the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that, all these documents, showing the candid and consistent admission of the guilt on the part of the petitioner by herself, would clearly prove that the petitioner had been guilty in tampering the mark statements of hundreds of students of the respondent University. Since it is a very serious issue having repercussion in more than hundred students of the University and also the reputation of the University were also very much at stake, because of this major mal practice, certainly, the University had no other option except to inflict the major punishment of dismissal from service and therefore, there is every justification in inflicting such major punishment on the petitioner, hence, the impugned order does not require any interference from this Court. 10. I have considered the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Advocate General for the University and also perused the materials placed before this Court. 11. Though a number of minor technical objections were raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out that the Controller of Examinations, who made a complaint, after she became the Registrar incharge, she herself issued the charge memo and had constituted the first enquiry committee, wherein, she also had been one of the party, and these mistakes committed by the respondent University would vitiate the enquiry proceedings and further the learned counsel for the petitioner, though had raised other grounds, such as, the enquiry committee in its report had suggested that maximum punishment can be inflicted on the petitioner and that would also be fatal to the procedure adopted by the respondent in conducting the enquiry, these minor defects, if at all, available in conducting the disciplinary proceedings, in the opinion of this Court, would not vitiate the proceedings, which culminated in the impugned order. This Court has come to such a conclusion for the obvious reason that from day one i.e., at the very first instance, where an explanation was called for from the petitioner, the petitioner had been maintaining a consistent stand that she alone committed the misdeeds. This Court has come to such a conclusion for the obvious reason that from day one i.e., at the very first instance, where an explanation was called for from the petitioner, the petitioner had been maintaining a consistent stand that she alone committed the misdeeds. Even to that extent, the learned counsel for the petitioner has agreed that the petitioner might have admitted the misdeed, but whether that misconduct or misdeed committed by the petitioner was pursuant to any ill-will or for any extraneous consideration and whether that misdeed would amount to warranting a major punishment of removal of service has to be considered. According to him, the quantum of punishment is the only issue and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner had advanced his arguments mainly on that aspect. 12. Even in respect of the said arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the petitioner had been guilty of involving in the misconduct or misdeed and whether the said misdeed had been done intentionally and for the ulterior purpose, this Court can very easily find answer from the documents filed before this Court. 13. In order to appreciate the said position, this Court wants to go into the details pertaining to the said letter of admissions made by the petitioner at various point of time during the entire disciplinary proceedings. 14. The first such admission letter of the guilt of the petitioner was made by the petitioner on 03.01.2006 and the content of the said letter is extracted hereunder: “TAMIL” 15. After the initial explanation, further show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 04.01.2006 asking why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her. For the said show cause notice, the petitioner had given reply on 05.01.2006, which reads thus: “TAMIL” 16. After the said explanation, since the same was not satisfactory to the University authorities, once again, the Registrar of the University had asked the petitioner to give her explanation by the show cause notice dated 05.01.2006, for which, the petitioner has given the following reply cum explanation: “TAMIL” 17. Thereafter, the charge memo dated 19.04.2006 was served on the petitioner and on receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner did not raise any issue seeking any documents further, other than the letter of the Controller of Examination dated 30.12.2005, as marked in Annexure III to the said charges. Thereafter, the charge memo dated 19.04.2006 was served on the petitioner and on receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner did not raise any issue seeking any documents further, other than the letter of the Controller of Examination dated 30.12.2005, as marked in Annexure III to the said charges. Instead, the petitioner by reply dated 20.04.2006 had made the following content: “TAMIL” 18. Not satisfied with the aforesaid explanation given by the petitioner, even though the petitioner had admitted her misdeeds, an enquiry was fixed and the petitioner was directed to appear before the enquiry committee. Based on the enquiry committee report dated 21.04.2006, when the same was served on her on the same day, i.e., on 21.04.2006, the petitioner has once again given a letter admitting her guilt, which reads thus: “TAMIL” 19. Thereafter, a second show cause notice was given on 12.05.2006 seeking the reply of the petitioner on the enquiry report, for which, the petitioner had given the following explanation: “TAMIL” 20. Thereafter, the University thought of constituting a second enquiry committee, probably, because of the reason that the then Controller of Examination, who made a complaint, initially, had subsequently become the Registrar in-charge of the University, who also, apart from constituting the enquiry committee, had been part of the enquiry committee. Therefore, in order to rectify the said mistakes, a second enquiry committee was constituted, which also conducted the enquiry with the petitioner, where also the petitioner had given her explanation on 12.06.2006 in the following terms: “TAMIL” 21. Therefore, in order to rectify the said mistakes, a second enquiry committee was constituted, which also conducted the enquiry with the petitioner, where also the petitioner had given her explanation on 12.06.2006 in the following terms: “TAMIL” 21. Since the petitioner had been consistently taking the same stand that she only did all the misdeeds, which has been unearthed by the University and it was found that the petitioner alone had been in-charge of the mark statements/tabulations of the examination concerning all the students belonged to three particular Colleges and therefore, there had been no difficulty for the University, during the enquiry, to come to the conclusion that the petitioner had been guilty of the misdeeds committed by her and since it is a serious issue, as it involved career of more than 300 students studied at the three Colleges affiliated to the University and had also infuriated discredit to the reputation of the respondent University, which is the only women University in the State established for the academic advancement of women folk in the State, therefore, the University had decided to inflict the maximum punishment of removal from service against the petitioner. 22. This Court has also gone through the impugned order of punishment issued by the 2nd respondent and on perusal of the same, this Court is of the view that proper opportunities had been given to the petitioner, even though the petitioner had admitted the guilt at the first instance. 23. Though the theory of empty formality can be pressed into service, in these type of cases, where the guilt had already been accepted by the delinquent, where no enquiry need to be conducted as conducting such enquiry would be nothing but an empty formality, nevertheless, the University had taken efforts to conduct the enquiry not at once, but two times by rectifying all the technical flaws and therefore, it cannot be construed that the University has failed in their duty in conducting the disciplinary proceedings in the manner known to law. 24. 24. Therefore, the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner by raising some doubt over the technical flaws appears to be found in the disciplinary proceedings, can easily be brushed aside in view of the strong fact, where guilt against the petitioner has been accepted by her in clear terms and therefore, the other grounds raised by the petitioner's counsel during his argument cannot be made applicable to the present case, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances, as has been reflected in the various letters, communications, explanations and reply given by the petitioner. 25. The petitioner was working only as an Assistant, which is a lower level employment of the University and with that capacity, if the petitioner was able to meddle with the examination and was able to tamper with the mark statements or tabulated mark statements of 100's of the students, certainly, it will be a serious issue. If the person, like the petitioner, is permitted to continue in the service of the University, in future, she may at any point of time, that too, in the next higher pedestal, would be able to do this kind of misdeeds and that will affect and spoil the reputation of the University. Therefore, no lenient view can be shown to the petitioner as there is every justification on the part of the University Management to inflict the maximum punishment of removal from service. 26. Finally, an appeal was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that if ultimately this Court comes to the conclusion that the decision taken by the University finding that the petitioner was guilty is correct and this Court ultimately comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is liable to be punished for such guilt, being a lady, she may be given a chance by taking a lenient view and the punishment may be modified. 27. The said appeal made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not appealing to this Court for the reason stated above, apart from the one reason that the petitioner, after sent out from the University, had joined in some other College as an Assistant Professor and she had been working in the said College from 16.12.2012. 27. The said appeal made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not appealing to this Court for the reason stated above, apart from the one reason that the petitioner, after sent out from the University, had joined in some other College as an Assistant Professor and she had been working in the said College from 16.12.2012. The learned Additional Advocate General has produced a communication issued by the said Private College dated 18.08.2016, which discloses that the petitioner has been working as Assistant Professor from 16.12.2012. Therefore, the petitioner has no struggle for her livelihood and therefore, the said appeal made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to take a lenient view, for more than one reason, is liable to be rejected. 28. For all these reasons and discussions made above, this Court has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out any case to interfere with the impugned order of punishment inflicted on her. 29. In the result, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, there is no order as to costs.