Judicial review under Article 226 does not entail reappreciation of the merits of disciplinary decisions; finality of punishment orders must be respected unless clear jurisdictional errors are present.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition is being filed seeking following reliefs:-

“(i) That, this Hon'ble Court Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 05.12.2022 and dated 30.01.2023 (Annexure P/1) passed by respondent no. 1 and also directed to the respondent no. 1 should be passed an order in favour of the petitioner to granted two increment from the date of revoking the suspension order and given payment to the petitioner within specific time.

(ii) Cost of the petition may to also be granted to the petitioner.

(iii) That, any other relief, which the petitioner is entitled and this Hon'ble court deems it fit may kindly, be granted to the petitioner.”

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner was appointed in the Education Department of the State and served on the post of Upper Division Teacher. During the course of his service, he was subsequently promoted and ultimately served on the post of Principal. Upon attaining the age of superannuation, the petitioner retired from service on 30.06.2005 from the post of Principal, having rendered long and unblemished service except for the incident referred to hereinbelow. During his service tenure, the petitioner was placed under suspension in March, 2000. Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were concluded and vide order dated 11.06.2003, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and a minor penalty of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect was imposed upon him. Against the said order, no departmental appeal was preferred by the petitioner. The alleged misappropriation of an amount of Rs.1,59,000/- was committed by the Accountant, namely Karimulla Khan, who has already deposited the entire said amount on 02.08.2005. After such deposit, the petitioner was reinstated in service. However, despite the petitioner having already retired from service, the effect of the punishment of withholding increments with cumulative effect has continued and is adversely affecting the pensionary benefits payable to the petitioner. After retirement, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(S) No. 8300/2018, seeking restoration of the two increments withheld with cumulative effect by order dated 11.06.2003. The said writ petition was considered by this Court and vide order dated 11.07.2022, this Court directed the respondent authorities to decide the pending representation of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. In compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation before respondent No.1 on 12.01.2023, seeking restoration of the withheld increments and for converting the punishment from cumulative effect to non-cumulative effect, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner had already retired from service. Respondent No.1 decided the representation of the petitioner and rejected the same by order dated 30.01.2023, which was communicated to the petitioner on 22.02.2023. The representation was rejected primarily on the ground that the punishment order dated 11.06.2003 had attained finality as no appeal was preferred at the relevant time and that the petitioner, being the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, could not escape responsibility for the alleged misappropriation. The respondent authorities failed to appreciate that the entire misappropriated amount of Rs.1,59,000/- had already been deposited by the Accountant, Karimulla Khan, on 02.08.2005 and that the petitioner had no direct role in the alleged misappropriation. The respondents have also failed