The main legal point established in the judgment is that the principle of proportionality must be considered in imposing disciplinary penalties, and the loss of confidence in an employee by the employer can justify the imposition of major penalties.

1. In this writ petition, what this Court is called upon to consider is the proportionality of punishment meted out to the petitioner, an employee of the first respondent Devaswom Board, who was removed from service on the ground that the charges that had been framed against him stood proved, especially, by his own admission.

2. Briefly stated, the petitioner was initially appointed in 2003 as Watcher-cum-Peon in one of the temples under the management of the first respondent Board. Considered hierarchically, Watcher-cum-Peon, being the feeder category, the next promotional post is Junior Devaswom Officer. If any person is required to be promoted, it shall be through a written test and interview.

3. In any event, since there was a vacancy, instead of going for regular promotion, the first respondent Board put the petitioner in charge of Pallanchathanoor Devaswom. While the petitioner was working in the said temple as Junior Devaswom Officer, the third respondent issued Exhibit P2 memo in the manner of a show cause notice, calling upon the petitioner to answer the charge of financial irregularities. Pursuant to Exhibit P2, the petitioner was placed under suspension through Exhibit P3 proceedings. Later, on 15.09.2012, Exhibit P4 memo of charges was issued, which was followed by the Board's proceedings in Exhibit P5. Having quantified at Rs. 80,358/- the loss the respondent Board suffered on account what are said to be the financial irregularities committed by the petitioner, the second respondent issued Exhibit P5

(a) show cause notice calling upon the petitioner to answer the charges stated in Exhibit P5(a). From the record it is evident that, through Exhibit P6, the petitioner filed his explanation. Having not been satisfied with the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the first respondent passed Exhibit P7 order removing the petitioner from service.

4. Aggrieved by Exhibit P7 order, the petitioner submitted Exhibit P8 review petition before the Board. Later, ventilating his grievance that Exhibit P8 review petition had not been disposed of expeditiously, the petitioner filed W.P.(C)No.26065/2013, which was disposed of by this Court through Exhibit P9 judgment. It can be seen that this Court directed the authorities to consider Exhibit P8 and pass appropriate orders thereon. Eventually in compliance with the direction of this Court, the first respondent passed Exhibit P10 order re-affirming the findings in Exhibit P7. Under those circumstances, aggrieved by Exhibits P7 and P10, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

5. Sri.Ramesh Chander, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the petitioner has never been guilty of any misappropriation. In elaboration of his submissions, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted that, though the petitioner belonged to the last grade service of the respondent Board, he was kept in the promotional post against his will. Given the petitioner's lack of experience and family problems, especially his son's ill health, the respondent authorities ought to have properly guided him administrationally. According to the learned Senior Counsel, whatever the shortcomings found on the part of the petitioner are only as a result of lack of experience and proper guidance.

6. Taking this Court through the entire record, the learned Senior Counsel has further contended that the respondent Board has not suffered any financial loss, inasmuch as, whatever the amount quantified by the authorities was remitted back by the petitioner. The learned Senior Counsel has also contended that at no point of time had there been any proper enquiry into the charges leveled against the petitioner. Expatiating on the said submission, the learned Senior Counsel has stated that no notice had been given to the petitioner before enquiry. Adverting to the admissions made by the petitioner in Exhibit P8, the learned Senior Counsel has stated that the superior of