The punishment imposed must be proportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct, and the Court can modify the punishment if it shocks the conscience of the Court.

Petitioner seeks writ of certiorarified mandamus, to quash the order of the first respondent in R.C. No. 30803/F1/2000, dated 16. 2002 and to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner as Chief Superintendent of the third respondent College with all monetary benefits inducing back wages from 4. 2000 todate.

2. Brief facts which led to the filing of writ petition are as follows:

(i) Petitioner joined the service of the third respondent/College ever since its inception, namely 1974 as Head Clerk. Thereafter, petitioner was promoted as Superintendent as on 8. 1988 and in that capacity, he has been working till 4. 2000 and on the same, day the Petitioner was suspended.

(ii) On 38. 1979, the petitioner gave a resignation letter to the third respondent which was withdrawn by him on the same day. However, the third respondent relieved the petitioner from service after two years, namely on 33. 1981. Aggrieved by the same petitioner filed W.P.No. 9635 of 1983, judgment dated 10. 1991, this Court allowed the petition and quashed the relieving order and ordered reinstatement of the petitioner.

(iii) Third respondent reinstated the petitioner on 14. 1993. According to petitioner, inspite of several representations by the petitioner for the period, from 4. 1981 to 14. 1993 the petitioner was not paid back wages and arrears of monetary benefits. The Government passed a Government Order on 29. 1996 regularising the period of strike and directing payment of salary.

(iv) Petitioner was suddenly suspended by the third respondent on 4. 2000 on the allegation that petitioner has misappropriated certain amount from a student of the college. In regard to this, a criminal complaint was filed and the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail. Thereafter, a Charge Memo was issued by the 3rd respondent dated 25. 2000, that the petitioner has received Rs. 15,000/-from a second year M.B.A. Student. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 26. 2000.

(v) The third respondent appointed one Dr. V. Subramaniam, as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges. On completing the enquiry on 27. 2000, the enquiry officer submitted the report to the third respondent without furnishing a copy to the petitioner. The third respondent has issued a minutes of the College Committee meeting on 27. 2000 in which the third respondent has stated that the petitioner found guilty of charges. On 9. 2000, college committee has taken a decision to remove the petitioner from service permanently and retrospectively from 4. 2000. The 3rd respondent has sent the proposal to the 2nd respondent on 29. 2000 for prior approval. The 2nd respondent Competent Authority by his order dated 30.3.2001 disapproved the proposal of the 3rd respondent to remove the petitioner from service.

(vi) Aggrieved by the order of the 2nd respondent Competent Authority, the 3rd respondent preferred an appeal on 24. 2001 to the 1 st respondent under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulations) Act, 1976. By the impugned order in Rc. No. 30803/F1/2000 dated 16. 2002 (served on the petitioner on 26. 2002) first respondent allowed the appeal of the third respondent and consequently, setting aside the order of the second respondent and the same is challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition.

3. Opposing the petition, the first respondent has filed counter stating that the Appeal preferred by the third respondent/College under Section 37 of the Tamil Nadu Private Colleges (Regulation) Act (for short “Act”), was allowed by the first respondent by the impugned Order dated 16. 2002. It is further averred that the decision to dismiss the petitioner from service was taken in the resolution of the College Committee by a clear majority. It is averred that after going through all the records, the first respondent has allowed the Appeal, setting aside the order passed by the second respondent.

.4. The third respondent has filed counter stating that on the basis of findings