IMPORTANT POINT
The punishment imposed following departmental disciplinary proceedings must be proportionate to the proved misconduct, and the power of judicial review is limited to ensuring adherence to statutes and rules in the decision-making process.

ORDER :

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent in ROC.No.6453/2017 dated 22.03.2018 and the consequential order passed by the first respondent in ROC No.35897/2018/ C1 dated 01.02.2019 and quash the same.)

1. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the petitioner and the consequential Appellate Order rejecting the appeal, are under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was working as Junior Assistant. He was placed under suspension on initiation of departmental disciplinary proceedings. A charge memo was issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, in proceedings dated 01.12.2016. The petitioner submitted his explanations denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanations, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn conducted enquiry and submitted his Final Report holding that the charges against the petitioner are held proved. The Report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Auhority and second show cause notice was issued by enclosing copy of the enquiry report seeking further objections from the delinquent Officer on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his defence statement.

3. Considering the materials available on record, the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of dismissal from service The petitioner preferred an appeal before the first respondent, which was rejected in April 2018. Thus the present writ petition came to be instituted.

4. Mr. Karthik Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would mainly contend that the deposition and the demeanour of the witness have not been properly considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The various statements recorded during the course of enquiry would be sufficient to form an opinion that the major penalty of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the gravity of charges framed against the writ petitioner.

5. Mr. Karthik Rajan, learned counsel for the petitioner, drew our attention with reference to the statements recorded before the Enquiry Officer. Relying on the said statement, it is contended that the punishment of dismissal from service is excess and required interference.

6. Ms. Kanjana, learned counsel for the respondents, would oppose the contention by stating that the petitioner has involved in serious misconduct. The procedures as contemplated were scrupulously followed. The petitioner participated in the process of enquiry and defended his case. Thus there is no infirmity in the process adopted for concluding departmental disciplinary proceedings. The grounds raised by the petitioner regarding the statement of witnesses deserve no merit consideration, since the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have independently considered the merits and the documents available on record. Therefore, further consideration of facts may not be required in the present writ petition.

7. We have considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand.

8. The six charges framed against the writ petitioner and that are as follows:-

“Charge No.1:

That while you, Thiru P. Elangovan, during your tenure as Junior Assistant in the Mobile Court, Salem, when the Judicial Magistrate has not taken any case on file, you created a record as if the cases in STC.No.2831/2016, 2834/2016 and 2841/2016 were taken on file and fine were imposed and collected the amount and misappropriated the same.

Charge No.2:

In continuation of the said charge, you created a fake receipt in white paper by affixing the court round seal and the seal of the Presiding Officer of the court and thereby you misused the seals and deceived the Traffic Police, litigant public and the Judiciary.

Charge No.3:

When there was no case taken on file after