IMPORTANT POINT
The power of judicial review under Article 226 is limited to ensuring the processes are in line with the Statutes and Rules, not to adjudicate factual disputes in departmental disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

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 relating to the impugned proceedings issued by the second respondent in Roc.No.5585/2018 dated 29.04.2022 and to quash the same.)

1. Further representation called for from the petitioner on the findings of the Enquiry Report in departmental proceedings, is under challenge in the present writ petition.

2. The petitioner was holding the post of Superintendent. Departmental disciplinary proceedings were initiated and a charge memo in No.2 of 2018 dated 20.11.2018 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner initially challenged charge memo in WP No.2706 of 2019. The Division Bench of this Court passed final orders, dismissing the writ petition on 05.02.2019, by granting liberty to the writ petitioner to defend his case before the Disciplinary Authority. Accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn conducted an enquiry and submitted Final Report. The findings of the Enquiry Officer, in his Report, were not agreed by the Disciplinary Authority/ Principal District Judge.

3. Since the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, a show cause notice was issued calling further representation from the petitioner for providing an opportunity to the delinquent Officer. The said show cause notice calling further representation from the petitioner dated 29.04.2012, came to be challenged in the present writ petition.

4. Mr.J.Jayamalan, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that there is no basis for the charge memo issued to the writ petitioner. The fixation made to the staff members were approved by the learned Principal District Judge and therefore, the Disciplinary Authority has taken a partisan view in respect of the case of the writ petitioner. Once the fixation is approved, the question of framing charge memo would not arise at all. Thus the petitioner challenged the second show cause notice.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent would oppose the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that the procedures as contemplated under Discipline and Appeal Rules, are scrupulously followed. The petitioner was afforded with an opportunity to defend his case. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thus show cause notice was issued, calling for further representations/explanations from the delinquent Officer.

6. Considering the arguments as advanced between the parties to the lis on hand, the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is to ensure the processes through which the decision has been taken by the Competent Authority is in consonance with the Statutes and the Rules in force, but not a decision itself. Therefore the factual disputes raised in the departmental disciplinary proceedings deserves no adjudication from the hands of this Court.

7. All disputed facts or the allegations with reference to the charges, are to be adjudicated before the Disciplinary Authority. The scope of the power of judicial review cannot be expanded for the purpose of adjudication of disputed facts in departmental disciplinary proceedings. In the event of any such adjudication, there is a possibility of miscarriage of justice. Thus the Disciplinary Authority must be allowed to exercise his powers as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules by examining the records on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and take a decision.

8. In the present case, a charge memo was issued. Writ filed against the charge memo was dismissed. The petitioner participated in the domestic enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted his Final Report. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings in the enquiry report.

9. The Disciplinary Authority is empowered to disagree with