Judicial review in disciplinary matters is confined to evaluating the fairness of the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision. Courts will not interfere with findings based on evidence unless there is procedural irregularity, significant bias, or manifest unreasonableness resulting in a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel (APDCL), appearing for the respondents.

2. The challenge in the present proceedings is to an order dated 06.11.2007, issued by the Chairman, ASEB, inflicting a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of 03 (three) years upon the petitioner, on conclusion of Departmental proceeding instituted against him. The petitioner has also assailed an order dated 31.08.2015, by the Appellate Authority rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner and thereby affirming the penalty imposed upon him.

3. The facts in brief requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present writ petition is noticed as under;

The petitioner while working as a Superintending Engineer (Civil) attached to the Project Management Unit (PMU) of the Assam Electricity Grid Corporation Limited (AEGCL), came to be placed under suspension vide issuance of an order dated 26.02.2007, pending drawal of Departmental proceedings against him.

Subsequently a Departmental proceedings came to be instituted against the petitioner vide issuance of a charge-sheet dated 20.04.2007. 02 (two) Articles of Charge came to be framed, therein, against the petitioner. The petitioner on receipt of the said charge-sheet proceeded vide a representation dated 23.04.2007, to request his Disciplinary Authority to furnish to him copies of the documents as listed out, therein.

It is projected in the writ petition that the petitioner was permitted to inspect the relevant documents and the petitioner thereafter, has submitted his written statements in the matter on 07.05.2004. After submission of the written statement in the matter by the petitioner, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and the petitioner was permitted to resume his duties against the post identified for the purpose.

The written statements submitted by the petitioner not being found to be satisfactory, an enquiry was directed to be held in the matter. The petitioner accordingly was vide order dated 05.06.2007, directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer as appointed. The enquiry accordingly commenced. On conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, submitted his enquiry report on 16.08.2007, and the same was forwarded to the petitioner by his Disciplinary Authority vide communication dated 27.08.2007, requiring the petitioner to submit his representation, thereon. In the said communication dated 27.08.2007, the penalty of compulsory retirement was proposed to be inflicted upon the petitioner, herein. On a request made by the petitioner he was further furnished with xerox copies of the documents as desired by him. Thereafter, the petitioner had submitted his representation against the enquiry report on 14.09.2006. The Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner on consideration of the enquiry report as well as the materials coming on record in the light of the contentions raised by the petitioner in his representations against the enquiry report, proceeded vide order dated 06.11.2007, to impose upon the petitioner a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay of Rs.14,650/- per month from Rs.16,000/- per monthfor a period of 03 (three) years. The period of suspension undergone by the petitioner was regularized and the petitioner was held to receive no other benefit than the subsistence allowance as drawn by him.

Being aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal in the matter before the App