The court emphasized the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions and held that the punishment of termination was disproportionate to the misconduct proved.

M. Sathyanarayanan, J

1. The appellant is the writ petitioner and aggrieved against the dismissal of the writ petition in which challenge was made to the order of termination of his service, has filed this writ appeal.

2. The facts in brief which are necessary for the disposal of this writ appeal are as follows:-

The petitioner was selected as the Assistant Manager (Legal) (Trainee) for one year vide proceedings of respondents 2 and 3 dated 27. 1983 and thereafter, he was appointed as Assistant Manager (Legal) on regular basis on 27. 1984. On 9. 1986, all of a sudden, the appellant was transferred from Legal department and was kept idle without allocation of any work for about 5 months and whereas one A.V.Pandian, though was a junior Superintendent, was entrusted with the affairs of the law department. When Mr.A.V.Pandian was incharge of Legal Department, a bus belonging to the third respondent Corporation was attached on 1. 1987 pertaining to decree obtained in Motor Accident Case.

3. The third respondent vide proceedings in Memo dated 3. 1987, has called for explanation from the appellant alleging among other things that in spite of receipt of two Court Notices dated 16. 1985 in M.C.O.P.Nos.86 and 87 of 1985, before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tindivanam claiming compensation, he has not taken any steps to follow up the matter which resulted in the third respondent being set ex parte in both cases and further he has failed to take steps for setting aside the ex parte order passed in those cases, which ultimately resulted in the attachment of one of the buses belonging to the third respondent Corporation at the mid point of journey. It is further alleged in the said memo that the attachment of the bus was also appeared as news item in the Hindu News Daily dated 1. 1987 and the Corporation has to remit a sum of Rs.2,22,213.80 for getting release of the bus, which resulted in heavy financial loss. Therefore, the appellant put the Management in the most embarrassing situation because of his failure to take prompt action in respect of case pending before the Courts and it would amount to grave misconduct and dereliction of duty. Therefore in the said memo of the third respondent, the appellant herein was called upon to explain within three days from the date of receipt of the memo as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him.

4. The appellant on receipt of the said memo, had requested for furnishing of certain documents and thereafter submitted his explanation dated 19. 1988 to the said memo. In the reply, the appellant submitted that he is being victimised of the Managing Director to promote one A.V.Pandian - a backdoor entrant who had not even passed law in his first attempt and also to accompany one Somasundaram. It was further submitted by the appellant that when he was Assistant Manager (Legal), two cases were enrusted to the Advocate viz., Sadagopan and on his transfer from law department on 9. 1986, it was the duty of the persons who are incharge of the Department to take necessary follow up action to defend the case and since they failed to do so, ex parte decree came to be passed on 211. 1986. The Corporation has not taken any steps to set aside the ex parte decree immediately and they have taken 342 days to file application for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is further submitted by the appellant in his explanation that the charge is defective in material particulars and it is vindictive in nature mischievous and misleading.

5. The third respondent Management vide proceedings dated 15. 1987, had appointed Thiru.C.L.Sahasranamam, Deputy Commissioner of Labour (retired) as Enquiry Officer to conduct enquiry into the charges framed against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer had commenced his enquiry on 25. 1987 and concluded the same on 16. 1988 and thereafter submitted his report dated 27. 1988, wherein he has stated that charges framed against the appellant have been prov