ORDER : The prayer sought for herein is for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order passed by the first respondent in his proceedings Na.Ka.No.1119/2010Thu.Va.Tha.1, dated 23.02.2011, whereby, confirming the order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings No.Nil, dated 28.01.2010 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all backwages and other benefits. 2. The petitioner was working as Salesman at the second respondent Society, while so, the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him, under which, charges were framed, enquiry was conducted and all the four charges framed against the petitioner since has been proved as per the report of the Enquiry Officer, accepting the same, the second respondent has inflicted the punishment of removal of service against the petitioner, by order dated 28.01.2010. Felt aggrieved over the same, he has filed Revision before the first respondent and the Revisional Authority, after having considered the Revision, has rejected the same, by order dated 23.02.2011. Challenging both these orders, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. Heard Mr. C. Prakasam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner who would submit that, though four charges were framed against the petitioner and enquiry was conducted, where, ultimately, the Enquiry Officer has given his findings that, all the four charges were proved against the petitioner, the fact remains, according to him that, in respect of first charge, the amount of shortage to the extent of Rs.26,806.50/- though was admitted by the petitioner, the said amount partly was paid immediately and the remaining amount, the petitioner undertook to pay immediately. 4. In respect of the other charges also, whatever the alleged loss sustained by the second respondent Society, the same had been paid back and this has been taken note of by the Enquiry Officer, however, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that, the charges framed against the petitioner had been proved. 5. In this context, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the findings given in the Enquiry Officer's report, where the specific stand taken by the petitioner was that, the amount allegedly lost by the second respondent Society had been paid back by the petitioner. In this regard, he has relied upon the following portion of the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, which reads as follows: “Other Language” 6. In this regard, he has relied upon the following portion of the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, which reads as follows: “Other Language” 6. He would also submit that, even in reply given to the first charge, which is vague, as if that, the resolution passed by the second respondent dated 26.05.2008 has not been followed by the petitioner, therefore, against the vague charge also, proper explanation was given by the petitioner, that was also not properly considered by the Enquiry Officer, therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, based on the said Enquiry Officer's report, the punishment made against the petitioner, that too a major punishment of removal of service ought not to have been inflicted. When this was questioned in the Revision before the first respondent, the said authority also has not considered the same in proper prospective. Therefore, both the orders are liable to be interfered with, he contended. 7. Per contra, L.P. Shanmugasundaram, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the first respondent and Mr. M.S. Palaniswamy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that, the four charges framed against the petitioner, in fact had been accepted by the petitioner in his defence statement, that has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In respect of the shortage pertaining to the first three charges, those shortages were accepted by the petitioner and in this regard, though he claimed that, he paid back the amount, in respect of the first charge that the shortage amount is Rs.26,806.50/-, he paid only Rs.5,446.50/- and the remaining amount of Rs.21,360/- he wanted to pay, but he has never paid the amount. 8. They would also submit that, the petitioner not the first time is subjected to this kind of disciplinary proceedings, atleast 6 or 7 time charges were framed against him. Each and every time, the petitioner since has been suspended, the suspension period was treated as punishment and therefore, he is a habitual offender. 9. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have relied upon the following averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, which reads thus: "(v) It is submitted that the petitioner alleged that everyday he attending the office and distributed essential articles to the cards holders. 9. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents have relied upon the following averments made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, which reads thus: "(v) It is submitted that the petitioner alleged that everyday he attending the office and distributed essential articles to the cards holders. In this connection, it is submitted that the petitioner himself admitted before the Domestic Enquiry Officer and gave deposition to the effect that he had remitted the sales proceeds / not remitted the empty gunny sale proceeds and used it for his personal gain. This proves that the petitioner has failed in his duties and responsibility cast upon the salesman vide Society Resolution No.4 dated 26.05.2008 (in the instant case they failed to remit the sales proceed and obtain receipt daily). This is no first time but 8th time. As narrated in prepras 5(a), while the petitioner was working as Salesman, he was placed under suspension for seven(7) time, for indulging malpractice and made stock deficit of essential commodities meant for Public Distribution System, for the period from (1) 11.07.1989 to 03.08.1989 (2) 15.05.1991 to 28.06.1991 (3) 19.01.1995 to 26.04.1995 (4) 10.08.1996 to 22.10.1996 (5) 23.10.2002 to 11.05.2003 (6) 03.07.2004 to 12.03.2005 (7) 18.06.2007 to 18.02.2008. From the above it is crystal clear that the petitioner is habitual offender. The second respondent Management was entrusted with noble cause of distribution of essential commodities to the card holders. How the petitioner expect that the second respondent Management allow him to continue such a habitual offender in service. As such the contention of the petitioner is denied as baseless and liable to be dismissed." 10. Also, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that, when Revision was filed before the first respondent, the Revisional Authority has considered all these defence taken by the petitioner and has actually considered each of the findings given on the charges framed on the petitioner which was already considered by the second respondent and by giving the following discussions and findings, the Revisional Authority has rejected the Revision: "Other Language" 11. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the first and second respondents would make an appeal before this Court that, since he is a habitual offender, who has been subjected to disciplinary proceedings more than seven or eight times, each time though his guilt was found proved, he was inflicted with the minimum punishment of treating the suspension period alone as a punishment. However, the petitioner has not corrected himself and not mend his way and he continued to do his mischiefs, thereby causing loss to the second respondent and therefore, the present punishment of removal of service inflicted against him is a proportionate punishment. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the said punishment, they contended. 12. I have considered the said rival submissions made by the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 13. The petitioner has not questioned the way in which the domestic enquiry was conducted. In fact before the Enquiry Officer, three out of four charges, the petitioner has accepted his guilt and only defence the petitioner has taken is that, the amount found to be shortage was paid back to the Society. 14. Even in this regard, in respect of first charge, though the shortage quantified is Rs.26,806.50/-, he had paid only Rs.5,446.50/- on 31.03.2009 and the remaining amount of Rs.21,360/- was never paid by him and this has been exactly recorded by the Revisional Authority in his order, which were quoted herein above. 15. For each of the charge framed against the petitioner, since the petitioner himself has come forward to accept the same, merely because of amount of shortage had been paid back subsequently by the petitioner he cannot be exonerated from the charge. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that, the findings given by the Enquiry Officer, that the charges framed against the petitioner are proved is to be accepted, based on which, whether the punishment of removal of service given by the second respondent, which was confirmed by the first respondent is a proportionate punishment or not alone is a question. Even in this regard, this Court feels that, since the petitioner is subjected to disciplinary proceedings more than seven times, this has been explained by the first respondent in his counter which was quoted already, it discloses that, the petitioner has been a chronic violator and every time, when he was subjected to disciplinary proceedings, he seems to have paid back the money that, he had misappropriated, for shortage found, on every time punishment was awarded against him, treating the suspension period as punishment. Despite the series of disciplinary proceedings faced by the petitioner, he has not changed his way and his violation was continued and that has been ended in the present disciplinary proceedings, which are in question now. 16. Therefore, this Court feels that, such kind of unscrupulous persons going on swindling the money of the society, that too in a position as Salesman of the society which is part of Public Distribution System, distributing essential commodities to the public at large, such kind of employees like the petitioner should not have been permitted to continue in his service. Therefore, this Court feels that, maximum punishment inflicted against him is justified in fact is proportionate. 17. This aspect has been properly considered by the Revisional Authority also in his order in the Revision and this has also been quoted herein above, where the Revisional Authority has given cogent reasons for rejecting the revision. 18. In that view of the matter, this Court feels that, the petitioner has not successfully made out any ground to interfere with the punishment as well as the order of the Revisonal Authority. Therefore, this Court is inclined to reject this Writ Petition as it has failed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.