ORDER : (RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN, J.) This writ petition has been filed to set aside the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority namely 3 rd respondent in No.6717/P1/2006 dated 11.11.2009 and confirmed by the revisional and appellate authority viz. 2 nd respondent in appeal No.4279/MU/2009 dated 27.01.2010 and for reinstatement of the petitioner back into service as Grade II Warder with all attendant benefits. 2. The factual matrix of the case are as under - 2(a) Co-employee of the petitioner namely L.Mariyadoss, a Grade II Warder, Central Prison, Cuddalore gave a complaint and action was taken against the petitioner. Finally, order of dismissal from service was issued. Based upon the complaint of the said Mariyadoss, charge memo was issued on 11.05.2006. The sum and substance of the charge are as under - 3. Copies of the charge alongwith Annexure a, b, c, d were also been served on the petitioner. Explanation was submitted, enquiry was initially conducted by one P.Subramanian, Additional Superintendent of Prisons who was appointed as enquiry officer and enquiry has been completed by him. Before submitting his finding, he passed away and hence another person by name S.Murugesan, Additional Superintendent of Prisons was appointed and he submitted his findings. Based upon the said findings, disciplinary authority namely the third respondent passed an order on 11.11.2009. After enquiry finding was submitted, copies of the said findings were given to the petitioner and further Show Cause Notice was issued and thereafter, disciplinary authority has passed the above order of dismissal from service. 4. Against the said order of dismissal, appeal has been filed before the Deputy Inspector of Prisons, Trichy and the same was dismissed and the petitioner has filed revision petition. Meanwhile, he has also filed W.P.No.14724 of 2010 for early disposal of the petition. This court, by order dated 09.07.2010, directed the Inspector General of Prisons to consider and pass orders on merits, within the stipulated time. Subsequently, the appeal petition was also dismissed and hence the present writ petition. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Govt. pleader for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the revisional authority and the appellate authority has not given any reason for dismissing the appeal. 7. The learned Additional Govt. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Govt. pleader for the respondents. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the revisional authority and the appellate authority has not given any reason for dismissing the appeal. 7. The learned Additional Govt. Pleader, based upon the counter statement would contend that the order of dismissal from service is in consonance with the proved charges and hence does not require any interference. 8. Heard the rival submissions of both the parties. Copies of enquiry proceedings and explanation submitted by the petitioner on 03.10.2009 and appeal petition by the petitioner to the second respondent dated 12.12.2009 and review petition filed by the petitioner to the first respondent dated 06.02.2010 were considered. 9. After going through the charge memo alongwith Annexure a, b, c, d and the prescribed enquiry proceedings dated 15.10.2006, I find that the charge against the petitioner is framed under 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules alleging following lapses - (a) He has taken photo of Tmt.Tamilselvi w/o.Mariadoss Grade II Warder through Cell phone. Tr.Elangovan tortured and harassed Tmt.Tamilselvi and also threatened that he will paste the photo (i.e. his photo and photo of Tamilselvi) in the quarters. Not completing the duty and left the head quarters without getting permission from the higher authorities. He went to the relatives house of Tmt.Tamilselvi at Mannargudi and threatened her and also spoken abusive and filthy words. (b) Complaint was lodged in the Police station. The Police authorities, Mannargudi enquired him and obtained statement from him. They warned him. He has violated the rules 73, 26, 127, 128 of Tamil Nadu Prison Manual Volume II and also 20(1) of Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1973. 10(a) As per the direction of this court, enquiry proceedings have been filed in the typed set of papers. 10(b) Mr.L.Mariyadoss, formerly Grade II Constable, Central Prison, Cuddalore was examined as Government Witness No.1. He has specifically stated that on 02.05.2006 at about 8.30 p.m., the delinquent has entered into the private house at Mannargudi, where he has safely kept his wife to prevent the interference by the delinquent and scolded her using vulnerable words and made sexual abusement. Hence, his wife gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Cuddalore and also to him. Hence, his wife gave a complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Cuddalore and also to him. On 15.12.2006, the evidence has been recorded and there was no cross examination by the delinquent, as could be seen from the enquiry report and was counter signed by the delinquent, on the very same day. 10(c) One Selvasundari, Assistant, Central Prison, Cuddalore has produced four documents namely, (a) complaint given by the Government Witness dated 03.05.2006, (b) Attendance register of para duty on 01.05.2006, (c) intimation duty register dated 01.05.2006 and (d) apology letter submitted by the delinquent officer to the Sub-Inspector, Mannargudi Police Station on 02.05.2006. 11. From the report, I find that the delinquent has not raised objection for marking of the document No.4 namely his own apology letter that hereinafter and henceforth, he will not meddle with the complainant wife and sought apology to save his service, which will be discussed in detailed infra. 12. One Sakarasamy was examined as Government Witness No.2. As per his evidence, on 01.05.2006, the delinquent has left the duty at 8.00 p.m. and returned to duty at 12.00 p.m. only. In this connection, the delinquent himself was examined by the enquiry officer as to the fairness of the trial and the delinquent has categorically admitted that he was given fair opportunity for cross examination and he has no evidence to render, i.e. either oral or documentary evidence. 13. On perusal of the Government Witness No.1, L.Mariyadoss, complaint is so serious in nature that the delinquent writ petitioner has taken the photographs of his wife (LW1's wife) alongwith his kid and thereafter morphed the photograph by posting delinquent face in the place of kid of the complainant/GW1, to make it appear that the complainant wife is closer to the delinquent and threatened her. Consequent thereto, in view of the threatening given by the petitioner, the complainant has attempted to commit suicide and was saved by her husband and other person in the quarters. Thereafter, the Government Witness No.1 Mariyadoss made arrangements to keep his wife and children in his brother-in-law's house at Mannargudi. Consequent thereto, in view of the threatening given by the petitioner, the complainant has attempted to commit suicide and was saved by her husband and other person in the quarters. Thereafter, the Government Witness No.1 Mariyadoss made arrangements to keep his wife and children in his brother-in-law's house at Mannargudi. Noticing the same, the petitioner appears to have followed her by leaving his duty on 01.05.2006 and went near her house, called from the nearby provisional store and asked her to yield to his (delinquent) sexual desire and went to her house at Mannargudi, threatened her and also abused her in filthy language. Hence, GW1's wife lodged a complaint with the Mannargudi Police Station and the Sub-Inspector of Police, Mannargudi Police Station took the petitioner to the police station and on enquiry, the petitioner gave a statement that he will not interfere with her affairs no longer and to save the service, he gave an apology letter to the police and the same is marked as Doc.No.4, as mentioned supra. 14. At the time of marking of the document no.4, there was no objection on behalf of the delinquent petitioner. In respect of the statement recorded by the Government Witness No.1 L.Mariyadoss, there was no cross examination. In the explanation submitted by the delinquent petitioner, he has not disputed the letter nor disputed the signature. Only after the second Show Cause Notice was issued, he would state in the grounds that it was manipulated by Mariyadoss. The charge is specific and it is not vague, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the departmental enquiry was conducted in a fair manner, sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner, dates were also adjourned to his convenience. 15. After perusal of the minutes drawn by the enquiry officer, I find that the same is properly appreciated the statement of the witnesses. In the departmental proceedings, charges need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as in the case of criminal cases. After perusing the materials and also the minutes of the enquiry, I find that the charge memo is clear and charge memo was issued in the proper manner and charges are supported by oral and material evidence and charge framed against the petitioner is in connection with complaint made by the co-employer and that are abusive and punishable under Government Service Conduct Rules. 16. 16. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the signature of the petitioner in the so called apology letter before the Sub- Inspector of Police is disputed. As observed earlier, during the departmental enquiry, no such plea was taken by the petitioner. Had there been an objection by the delinquent officer at the time of enquiry, the department could have summoned the Mannargudi Sub Inspector of Police to substantiate the same. The petitioner has not disputed document No.4 , namely the apology letter given to Sub Inspector of Police, Mannargudi. It is only at the time of second Show Cause Notice, he would state that it was manipulated. Only after the disposal of the appeal and revision, now in the writ petition, for the first time, such a plea was taken and hence, such a plea cannot be countenanced. 17. This court has compared the signature of the delinquent petition with the admitted signature as found in the various official communications during the enquiry as well in the appeal grounds. I find that the such plea was only an after thought to escape from the punishment namely dismissal from service. 18(a) The distance between Cuddalore and Mannargudi and travel time between the same are kept in mind in comparing the logbook. In the explanation submitted by the delinquent petitioner, he has admitted that on that date, he was not well and hence a substitute has been made and he was sleeping inside after taking tablet for severe headache. 18(b) The present stand taken by the petitioner is only an after thought and he was absent for relevant point of time. During the enquiry or during the second Show Cause Notice, he has not taken any stand as it is now projected before this court, assumes significance. He has not cross examined the Government Witness No.1 for the reasons best known to him. He has admitted during the enquiry that he was given fair chance of cross examining the parties. During the enquiry or during the second Show Cause Notice, he has not taken any stand as it is now projected before this court, assumes significance. He has not cross examined the Government Witness No.1 for the reasons best known to him. He has admitted during the enquiry that he was given fair chance of cross examining the parties. He has neither disputed document No.1, complaint given by Mariyadoss nor document No.4 – apology letter given by the petitioner to the Sub Inspector of Police, Mannargudi for his misbehaviour and sexual abusement made over phone as well as in person at Mannargudi by showing morphed photograph of the petitioner alongwith wife of Mariyadoss, Government Witness No.1, clearly demonstrates the veracity and act of the delinquent against the wife of the co-employee). 19. The gravity of the delinquency involved is very serious. The petitioner is a Grade II warder in the Jail Department which is a disciplinary force. The petitioner has to respect and protect the dignity of public and he cannot disturb sexually with the co-employee's wife. The punishment awarded is proportionate to the nature of the misconduct committed by the petitioner which was duly proved in the fair enquiry conducted by the department. 20(a) The disciplinary authority in his letter has clearly considered the representation made by the petitioner in reply to the second show cause notice, as to the proposed punishment and he has assigned reason to hold that the charges are proved in the manner known to law and before awarding the punishment, he has come out with a fake story. 20(b) The petitioner as well as the first witness are working in the same jail department as a sentry police and the wife of Government Witness No.1 was insulted and the petitioner made sexual abusement to the co-police employee's wife. He ought to have treated the said lady as a sister rather than having lust in his eye. 21. This court finds that by his action, the delinquent has put the department in public shame and has also recorded a finding that the act committed by the petitioner, as proved in the enquiry are unacceptable by any subordinate in a disciplinary force namely agency meant to protect the rights and dignity of the people. 21. This court finds that by his action, the delinquent has put the department in public shame and has also recorded a finding that the act committed by the petitioner, as proved in the enquiry are unacceptable by any subordinate in a disciplinary force namely agency meant to protect the rights and dignity of the people. Hence, I find that considering the nature and gravity of delinquency that was proved in the fair enquiry, following serious moral turpitude and misconduct which are grave in nature and in the absence of any fresh material, I find that the order of dismissal from the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the revisional and appellate authority, is well founded and well merited assigning the reasons thereof. Accordingly, I find no merits in this case. 22. In the result, this Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.