The scope of judicial review of administrative action is limited to examining whether the decision-making process was illegal, illogical, or suffered from procedural impropriety, and whether the decision was so shocking to the conscience of the court that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.

1. - The petitioner, in the present writ application is aggrieved the orders dated 28.7.1987 (Annexure-5), order dated 8.1.1990 (Annexure-6) and order passed on his Revision Application dated 14.9.1998 (Annexure-7), upholding the penalty of dismissal from service for proved misconduct committed by the petitioner, and therefore, has approached this Court, praying for the following relief(s).

(i) by an appropriate order writ or direction the punishment order dated 28.7.1987, Annexure-5, judgment dated 8.1.1990 Annexure-6 and judgment dated 14.9.1998 Annexure-7 may be quashed and set aside.

(ii) by an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service right from 26.9.1982 with all consequential benefits.

(iii) by an appropriate writ order or direction an exemplary cost of Rs. 50,000/- may be imposed on the respondents.

(iv) Any other order which may be deemed fit and proper in the facts of the case may be also be passed in favour of the petitioner.

2. Briefly, the material skeletal facts necessary for appreciation of controversy raised are: that the petitioner while working as Manager, Co-operative Society in Village-Deva Bamanwas, Panchayat Samiti, Thanagaji, District-Alwar, was placed under suspension on 26th November, 1982 and was served with the charge-memo dated 10.1.1983. The charge-memo was responded by the petitioner on 22.1.1983. A departmental inquiry was initiated under Rule 17 of the "Krishi Rindatri Sahakari Samitiyan Ke Vyavasthapako Ke Seva Niyam, 1977" (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1977', for short). The Enquiry Officer conducted the inquiry against the petitioner in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Rules of 1977, affording ample opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself.

3. The enquiry report was submitted on 7.2.1987. The Enquiry Officer returned a finding of guilt on the charges leveled against the petitioner leading to termination of his services for proved misconduct of financial illegalities and embezzlement as well as for absence from headquarters without information to the competent Authority.

4. The Disciplinary authority in exercise of powers under Rule 17(4) of the Rules of 1977, terminated the services of the petitioner. Appeal preferred against the order of termination before the Appellate Authority was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 8th January, 1990 (Annexure-6). The revision petition was also dismissed in view of the fact that the Rules of 1977, were not in force when the matter came up for adjudication before the authority, leaving it open for the petitioner to avail of the remedy available under the law.

5. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent No.1, 2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit whereas respondent No.3 and 4 have submitted their reply separately. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.4, submits that the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.3 and 4, in fact, is a reply on behalf of respondent 4 alone.

6. The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have supported the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner vide impugned order dated 28th July, 1987 (Annexure-5). According to the respondents, the inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the prescribed procedure under the Rules of 1977, and the petitioner was afforded ample opportunity to defended his case and lead evidence. It is further submitted that from the materials available on record, it is evident that the petitioner was guilty of the charges leveled against him. Moreover, the petitioner was absent from duty and committed interpolation in the attendance register, which was in his possession, and therefore, the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer cannot be faulted. The petitioner was found guilty for financial irregularities and illegalities as well as for illegal retention of money of the Co-operative Society. According to