Disciplinary authorities have the discretion to impose penalties based on misconduct, and judicial review is limited to the fairness and legality of the inquiry process, not the substantive merits of evidence.

ORDER :

M.DHANDAPANI, J.

Aggrieved by the impugned orders in and by which the petitioners were dismissed from service, the writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners.

2. The short facts leading to the filing of the writ petitions could be summarised as under :-

The petitioner in the respective writ petitions in W.P. No.5964/24, 2139/24 and 17888/25, were working as Works Assistant, Surveyor and Manager (Marketing & Service) in the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (for short ‘the Board’). While they were working in the Board, they were suspended on the ground that they colluded and issued sale deeds in respect of Commercial Plot Nos.K-2 and K-1B2 at Arumbakkam without the orders of the competent authority by illegally creating documents without following the allotment procedures and, thereby, caused loss of valuable lands belonging to the Board.

3. The petitioners were proceeded with departmentally and after obtaining explanation and not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioners, four charges were framed and a common enquiry was conducted in which the enquiry officer initially appointed proceeded on leave and, therefore, the enquiry was conducted by the Chief Revenue Officer of the Housing Board. After conducting enquiry in which no witnesses were examined to speak about the allegations, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report holding the charges proved against the petitioners.

4. The disciplinary authority, upon providing a copy of the enquiry report to the petitioners called for further explanation to which the respective petitioners submitted their explanation and being not satisfied with the explanation, the disciplinary authority placed the matter before the disciplinary committee and the disciplinary committee, finding that the charges levelled against the petitioners are grave in nature and considering the findings of the enquiry officer recommended imposition of punishment of dismissal of the petitioners from service. It is further averred by the petitioners that the recommendation of dismissal from service was examined by the Board and the Board accepted to accept the recommendation of dismissal from service and the petitioners were accordingly dismissed from service vide order dated 30.04.2019.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority and as there was no response, the petitioners preferred writ petition in which direction was given to pass orders on the said appeal based on the fresh representation that the petitioners were permitted to give. However, inspite of the directions of this Court to dispose of the representation and decide the appeal within a period of eight weeks, after a lapse of 4 ½ years, the impugned Government Orders have come to be passed rejecting the appeal of the petitioners and confirming the order of punishment imposed on them, which copy of the order was not given to the petitioners, but was made available only on an application under the Right to Information Act. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed by the 1^st respondent, which has been confirmed by the 2nd respondent, the present writ petitions have been filed by the respective petitioners.

6. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respective petitioners submitted that the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent is