The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of judicial review in employment disputes and the need for evidence supporting findings in disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records of the first respondent in its Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act Appeal No.6 of 2014, dated 04.04.2017 and quash the same.)

1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to quash the order of the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1947 in Appeal No.6 of 2014, dated 04.04.2017.

2. The second respondent was working as Accounts Assistant in the petitioner Trust and was promoted as Deputy Secretary. While functioning as Deputy Secretary, he not only committed various irregularities by causing loss to the petitioner Trust but also brought down the reputation of the Trust. A charge memo, dated 16.12.2013 containing 13 allegations was issued to him. The second respondent submitted his explanation, dated 23.12.2013. Not satisfied with the explanation, an enquiry was ordered. The Enquiry Officer by his report, dated 13.03.2014, held that the charges leveled against the second respondent were proved. Ultimately, the second respondent was dismissed from service on 19.05.2014. Aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the second respondent filed an appeal before the first respondent under the Tamil Nadu Shop and Establishment Act. The first respondent held that only three charges, out of 13 charges, were proved, without giving any cogent reasons for his conclusion. After holding that three charges had been proved, the first respondent ordered reinstatement of the second respondent. Therefore, this Writ Petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the scope of an Appellate Authority in an appeal against the findings of the enquiry report and punishment is very limited. Findings of fact arrived at by the disciplinary authority should not be normally interfered with unless malafides or perversity is established. In the case beforehand, the Enquiry Officer had given cogent reasons for reaching the conclusion of proof of charges against the second respondent. The power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. In the case beforehand, the Appellate Authority, despite holding that three charges, out of 13 charges, had been proved, proceeded to order reinstatement of the second respondent, which is contrary to law. The second respondent committed various acts of misconduct which included flagrant violation of Rules and procedures, criminal misappropriation etc. Therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority has to be set aside. The order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority has to be restored. In support of his submission, he relied on the Judgments reported in 2021 (2) SCC 612 [Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajai KUmar Srivastava] and AIR 2022 SC 2531 [State Bank of India and another Vs. K.S.Vishwanath] with regard to the powers of the Court in judicial review in departmental proceedings.

(i) In 2021 (2) SCC 612 [Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and others Vs. Ajai KUmar Srivastava], wherein it is observed as follows:-

"26. It is well settled that where the enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority, on receiving the report of enquiry, the disciplinary authority may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the former, in case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent may record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry.

27. It is true that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. However, the only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reaso