JUDGMENT Dated this the 29^th day of January, 2026 The petitioner challenges his dismissal from service. The petitioner states that disciplinary action was arbitrary and conclusions arrived at are unsupported by evidence. Enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice. The finding of guilt is founded solely on subjective perception of smell, without any breath analyser test or medical examination. The petitioner, therefore, seeks to quash Ext.P4 order of dismissal issued by the 2^nd respondent.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents.

3. I find that the dismissal order was passed on

21.04.2022. The petitioner has preferred Ext.P6 representation before the 1^st respondent-Managing Director.

4. The Standing Counsel would submit that a statutory Appeal will lie against Ext.P4 order before the Managing Director and the petitioner will have to invoke appellate remedy.

5. Going through Ext.P6 representation, I find that the representation has been made in the form of an Appeal pointing out the irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings.

6. In the circumstances, it would be only just and prope