Disciplinary actions must align with the principle of proportionality; excessive penalties without sufficient basis may dominate judicial review under Article 226.

JUDGMENT :

Harisankar V. Menon, J.

The petitioner, working as an Engineer, holding the post of Head of the Department (Department of Engineering and Maintenance) with the 1^st respondent herein, was appointed pursuant to Ext.P1 order dated 23.06.2009. The petitioner took charge with the 1^st respondent herein on 11.07.2009. He has been continuing so till 2019, when pursuant to Ext.P3 order dated 19.11.2019 issued by the 2^nd respondent, the control of the department headed by him was taken over by the Director of the 1^st respondent. Thereafter, a show cause notice at Ext.P4 dated 23.11.2019, initiating disciplinary proceedings, was served on the petitioner, for which Ext.P5 reply dated 04.12.2019 has been submitted by the petitioner. Later, the department, which was being headed by the petitioner, was entrusted to the senior-most supervisor of the department with effect from 02.03.2020, followed with Ext.P9 memo of charges. The petitioner, having submitted Ext.P10 reply dated 24.03.2020, denying the allegations, the 1^st respondent constituted an enquiry leading to Ext.P15 Domestic Enquiry Report dated 29.04.2023. In the meantime, the petitioner was suspended from service for a period of three months, as evidenced by Ext.P11 dated 28.03.2020, and later, pursuant to Ext.P17 dated 11.05.2023, issued by the 2^nd respondent herein, the petitioner was dismissed from the service of the 1^st respondent. It is seeking to challenge Ext.P17 issued as above, as well as the show cause notice at Ext.P4 and the Domestic Enquiry Report at Ext.P15, that the petitioner has instituted the captioned writ petition. The petitioner has also sought to challenge Ext.P3, by which he was removed from the charge of the department, as noticed earlier, as well as Ext.P11 order of suspension, referred to above.

2. I have heard Smt.Kavya Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned Senior counsel, instructed by Ms.P.A.Helen, learned counsel for the respondents herein.

3. Sri.P.Sreekumar, learned Senior counsel for the respondents, would contend that the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal with reference to the provisions of Rule 81 of Ext.P2 Service Rules, and insofar as the petitioner has not preferred an appeal as above, this writ petition is not maintainable. I have considered the afore preliminary objection raised by the respondents.

4. This Court notices that the petitioner has been removed from service pursuant to the order at Ext.P17. Ultimately, the allegations leading to the suspension from service as well as the final order of dismissal requires to be analysed. In a situation where this Court is coming to a conclusion that the penalty imposed, as above, is “disproportionate” to the charges, in my opinion, the petitioner requires to be permitted to challenge the impugned orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as held by the Apex Court in Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank v. Coimbatore District Central Cooperative Bank Employees Assn. And Another [ (2007) 4 SCC 669 ]. In my opinion, the order at Ext.P17, leading to the dismissal of the petitioner from service, is highly “disproportionate” for the reasons to be discussed hereafter, and therefore, the petitioner is to be permitted to avail the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. This Court notices that the proceedings against the petitioner commenced with the office order at Ext.P3. It is worthwhile to refer to the allegations/reasons contained in Ext.P3, which reads as under:-

“Off late it has been noticed by the undersigned that the Engineering & Mainte