HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN WRIT PETITION No.12626 of 2000 ORDER: The order of the 2nd respondent dated 31.07.2009, and the consequential order of the 1st respondent dated 19.05.2000, are under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner was appointed as an Executive Assistant in the LIC Housing Finance Limited on 31.07.1992. She was placed under suspension with effect from 08.03.1999 and a charge memo dated 23.03.1999 was issued by the Regional Manager alleging that she had misappropriated company’s funds. The petitioner claims to have approached the Regional Manager requesting that she be exonerated, and the 2nd respondent had stated that, if she accepted the charge, a lenient view would be taken. The petitioner claims to have submitted her explanation dated 02.04.1999 under such a mistaken belief, and to have reiterated the same during the course of the departmental enquiry. It is her grievance that she was not given an opportunity of a fair hearing, and that the enquiry held into the charges was perfunctory in nature. Sri K. Vasudeva Reddy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner has been denied a fair opportunity of defending herself in respect of the charge of misappropriation; the mere fact that she had admitted to the charge in her reply to the show cause notice did not absolve the respondents from conducting a proper enquiry giving the petitioner an opportunity of cross-examining management witnesses and adducing evidence in her defence; and, since the impugned order of both the disciplinary and the appellate authority stands vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice, both the impugned orders are required to be set aside. The allegation against the petitioner, in the charge memo issued to her, is that she had misappropriated company funds of Rs.17,729.58 ps. In her reply to the charge memo, vide letter dated 22.04.1999, the petitioner admitted having committed the act of misconduct. Even in the departmental enquiry the petitioner again admitted the charge, and stated that the amounts mentioned in the charge sheet were known to her and the submission, in the letter dated 22.04.1999 were given by her. In such circumstances the Disciplinary authority imposed on the petitioner the punishment of removal from service in addition to directing recovery of Rs.17,729.58 ps misappropriated by her. This order was confirmed in appeal by the appellate authority. The petitioner was found guilty of adjusting group payments of loanees by transferring amounts to her own housing loan account which, in effect, amounts to misappropriation of the funds of the Company. In cases where an employer admits her guilt, to insist upon the management to let in evidence would only be an empty formality. (Central Bank of India v. Karunamoy[1]; Employees of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (Private) Ltd. v. The Workmen[2]). The petitioner, having admitted her guilt both in her explanation to the charge memo and during the course of the departmental enquiry proceedings, cannot be heard to contend that evidence should have been let in by the respondents to establish the charge and that she ought to have been permitted to adduce evidence in her defence. Her plea of being misled is evidently an afterthought only to escape the rigor of the punishment imposed on her. For the allegations held established of misappropriation of public funds, the punishment of removal from services cannot be said to be disproportionate. Viewed from any angle, the order under challenge do not necessitate interference in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. ____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J Date: 23.07.2010 MRKR [1] AIR 1968 SC 266 [2] AIR 1968 SC 236