IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that disciplinary proceedings must comply with natural justice, be based on sufficient evidence, and impose proportionate punishment for proved misconducts.

JUDGMENT :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in ROC.No.644/2011/C1 dated 29.11.2013 in D.P.No.2/2010 dated 16.03.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all consequential service and monetary benefits.)

1. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the writ petitioner is sought to be quashed in the present writ proceedings.

2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 2001. The Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a Charge Memorandum under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued in proceedings dated 14.09.2010.

3. Annexure-II to the Charge Memorandum provides statement of allegations and imputation of misconducts. Annexure-III provides list of documents relied on by the Disciplinary Authority. Annexure-IV provides list of witnesses to be examined.

4. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in respect of the Charge Memorandum issued against the writ petitioner issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules.

5. The petitioner submitted his explanations denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer, who in turn conducted an inquiry and submitted his Final Report holding that the Charge Nos. 1 to 3 are held proved and Charge Nos.4 & 5 not proved. The findings of the Inquiry Officer had been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Enclosing the copy of the inquiry Report, the 2nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the Delinquent Officer seeking further objections on the findings of the inquiry Officer. The petitioners submitted his objections. Considering the objections and materials available on record, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the writ petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority.

6. The appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was also rejected. Thus, the present writ petition came to be instituted.

7. The Disciplinary Authority had followed the procedures as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules scrupulously. The Rules of natural justice have been followed. The Delinquent Officer was provided with an opportunity to defend his case. The Delinquent Officer participated in all the proceedings and submitted his objections/explanations and led evidence during the course of domestic inquiry. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the procedures followed.

8. The charges are undoubtedly serious. The findings of the Inquiry Officer would be relevant for the purpose of considering the case on merits. The findings in the Inquiry Report in respect of all the 5 charges are as under:

6. PW.1 Thiru Sundaravelu, Copy examiner who is also attending FIR Section in his report ExP1 and in his evidence stated that on 05.05.2010 the FIRs stated in the list Ex.P2 were entrusted to delinquent No.1 and he failed to resubmit the same. PW.2 Thiru Elavarasan, Assistant, PW3 Thiru Karunanidhi, Head Clerk and PW4 Thiru N.Kothandaraj, Judicial Magistrate No.II held additional charge of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam also deposed that 17 FIRs stated in Ex.P2 were brought to PW4 for necessary orders by delinquent No.1 and after passing orders the same along with the other 3 FIR stated in Ex.P2 were handed over to delinquent No.1 for resubmitting the same to District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedaranyam. It is also admitted in delinquent No.1's evidence as DW4 and in his explanations that he attended the duty of taking the court records to Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagapattinam for getting orders on 03.05.2010, 4.5.2010 and on 05.05.2010 and he failed to resubmit the FIRs entrusted to him in the Court either on 05.05.2010 or thereaft