The court has the authority to review dismissal orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and can set them aside if found to be unsustainable procedurally, in proportionality, and timing wise.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal preferred under Clause XV of Letters Patent against the order dated 21.04.2022 made in W.P.No.15837 of 2015.)

Paresh Upadhyay, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 21.04.2022 recorded on W.P. No.15837 of 2015. This appeal is by the State authorities – respondents in the writ petition.

2. The writ petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 22.08.2014 for the misconduct alleged to have been committed by her which is referred to in the order under challenge. Learned single Judge has, by the order under challenge, set aside the dismissal order dated 22.08.2014 and has directed consequential payment to be made to the writ petitioner, who was otherwise to retire on 31.08.2014. It is this order which is under challenge before us.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that the writ petitioner was dismissed by the competent authority for proved misconduct and no procedural lapse could be attributed and therefore the discretion and wisdom of the disciplinary authority could not have been gone into by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly when the appellate authority had confirmed the order. It is submitted that the order passed by learned single Judge is unsustainable and the same be quashed and set aside.

4. On the other hand, learned advocate for the writ petitioner has submitted that, not only no misconduct was committed by the writ petitioner, but even if the record as it stands against the writ petitioner is accepted on its face value, the background in which the dismissal order is passed would speak of not only illegality, but malafide as well and therefore learned single Judge has rightly set aside the dismissal order. It is submitted that inspite of the writ petitioner having crossed the age of superannuation on 31.08.2014, only because of the impugned order in the writ petition, which was one week before her retirement, terminal dues have stood forfeited and the relief granted by learned single Judge be not interfered with. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed.

5. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record this Court finds that the dismissal order dated 22.08.2014 which is on record itself takes into consideration, 10 orders/ documents. On the face of it, following picture has emerged:

5.1 The writ petitioner had some grievance against her nonpromotion, for which she had approached this Court by filing W.P.No.15927 of 2006 wherein she had succeeded in the year 2008. There was non-compliance of the directions, for which she was constrained to approach this Court by filing contempt proceedings, which was entertained by this Court, appropriate directions were given, even cost was imposed of Rs.30,000/- by way of compensation qua which the State authorities were aggrieved, contempt appeal was filed and in that appeal, the portion of imposition of cost/ compensation was set aside, however the authorities were under coercion to comply with the directions. Ostensibly those directions were projected to have been complied with, however charge memo was also issued to the writ petitioner on 28.09.2010. Final explanation was asked for by the disciplinary authority on 03.08.2011, which in this case is District Collector, Thanjavur, which she had offered on 22.08.2011. The papers were lying as it is for years.

5.2 The writ petitioner was to retire on 31.08.2014. Just a week before that, on 22.08.2014 dismissal order was passed, inter-alia referring therein contempt proceedings and the contempt appeal.

5.3 On overall consideration of the material on record, including the order dated 22.08.2014 and the documents referred therein, we find that, the charge against the writ petitioner of not reporting to the Head of Department in the year 2009-2010, could not be treated to be that grave, which would have warranted dismissal from service, that too at the fague end of