IMPORTANT POINT
Judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited to ensuring due process was followed, not to reassess the proportionality of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

C. KUMARAPPAN, J.

Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 30.08.2019 passed in W.P. No. 25362 of 2013 and allow this writ appeal.

Prayer: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent praying to set aside the order dated 30.08.2019 passed in W.P. No. 30766 of 2013 and allow the writ appeal.

1. The respondents 1 and 2 before the writ Court are the appellants herein. The petitioner is the respondent in the Writ Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the Writ Court.

3. Short facts which give rise to the instant writ appeals is that, the petitioner preferred a writ petition in W.P. No. 25362 of 2013 seeking a direction to pay the monetary and all other service benefits due to the petitioner, treating him that he was deemed to have been retired from the services as Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services with effect from 31.01.2008.

4. Apart from the above writ petition, the petitioner has also filed yet another writ petition in WP. No. 30766 of 2013 seeking to quash the G.O.Ms. No. 748, Home (Police-XVII) Department dated 26.09.2013 by and in which the petitioner was terminated from the services for his proved misconduct.

5. The Writ Court, after having considered the submissions made by either side, and on the basis of the order passed in the batch of connected writ petitions between the same parties in the previous writ proceedings in WP.Nos.35217 of 2005, 5398 of 2006, 22850 & 25550 of 2008, 4211, 4212 and 6517 of 2009, has arrived at a conclusion that there are no occasions for the authority to proceed further against the petitioner and such order is nothing but, overreaching the order of the Writ Court and ultimately set aside the order of punishment.

6. According to the petitioner, when he was serving as a Deputy Director of Fire and Rescue Services, he was served with a charge Memorandum dated 05.01.2005. Thereafter, he was directed to submit an explanation. On submission of explanation, a domestic enquiry was conducted and one Mr. C.V.S. Rao was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer on completing the enquiry, has submitted his enquiry report holding that among 4 charges, only the count (ii) and (iii) of Charge No. 1 and charge No. 4 are proved and other charges not proved.

7. However, the appointing authority has deviated from the finding of the Enquiry Officer and on furnishing the copy of the enquiry report has called for further explanation from the delinquent officer. Since he has not submitted any further explanation, a punishment of dismissal of service was imposed against the petitioner.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner would vehemently contend that by virtue of earlier writ proceedings, the petitioner was deemed to have been retired from service and that all the previous disciplinary proceedings have been quashed. Therefore, contended that he is entitled for all terminal benefits. Apart from that, it is also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of dismissal is nothing but, an act contrary to the findings rendered in earlier round of litigation in WA.Nos.999 and 1578 of 2010. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that even the punishment imposed against the petitioner is disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. Hence, would contend that the order of the Writ Court is well merited and does not require any interference.

9. Per Contra, the learned Additional Advocate General Mr.Haja Nazirudeen assisted by Mr.Nanmaran, Additional Government Pleader would vehemently contend that as against the petitioner, they have issued three charge memorandums dated 26.08.1997, 18.02.2000 and on 05.01.2005. It is the submission of the learned Additional Advocate General that in earlier round of litigation in WA.Nos.999 & 1578 of 2010, the charges in respect of two charges qua 26.08.1997 and 18.02.2000 were qua