ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India seeking the following relief:

“…to issue Writ, Order or Orders, Direction or Directions more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the Respondent No. 1 and 4 in not taking action against the Respondent No.2 in view of the complaints filed by the petitioner for his illegal, unwarranted and out of official capacity causing irreparable mental, physical and financial loss and permanent partial hearing disability as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct respondent No.1 and 4 to take action against Respondent No. 2 for causing irreparable mental, physical and financial loss and permanent partial hearing disability and pass....”

2. None appeared for the petitioner.

3. Heard Mr.D.Pradeep, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home.

4. The learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home submits that, upon receipt of the representation submitted by the petitioner, respondent No. 4 duly initiated departmental proceedings against respondent No. 2. It is stated that a memorandum of charges (charge sheet) was issued, and the charged officer was afforded an opportunity to submit his explanation in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Upon consideration of the explanation submitted by respondent No. 2, along with the material available on record, the competent authority arrived at a conclusion exonerating the charged officer. Consequently, the disciplinary proceedings were concluded in accordance with law. It is therefore contended that the grievance of the petitioner has been adequately addressed and no further cause of action survives. On these grounds, dismissal of the writ petition is sought.

5. I have carefully perused the material available on record.

6. The contention of the petitioner is that respondents No. 1 to 4 have failed to take appropriate action against respondent No. 2 despite the complaint submitted by him, and therefore seeks issuance of appropriate directions by this Court.

7. However, the explanation furnished by respondent No. 4, through the learned Assistant Government Pleader, reveals that disciplinary proceedings were indeed initiated. A memorandum of charges dated 13.12.2019 was issued to respondent No. 2, and his explanation was duly obtained and considered. Thereafter, upon evaluation of the explanation and the material placed on record, the competent authority (respondent No. 1) arrived at a reasoned conclusion exonerating respondent No. 2.

8. The record thus clearly establishes that the petitioner’s representation has been duly considered and acted upon by the competent authority. It is a settled principle of administrative law that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to examining the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. Unless the decision is shown to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice, this Court would not ordinarily interfere with the outcome of departmental proceedings.

9. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610, wherein it was held that the High Court, in exercise of its writ jurisdiction, cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusions in disciplinary matters. Further, in State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao, AIR 1963 SC 1723, the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that judicial review is concerned with the legality of the procedure followed and not with the correctness of the findings, so long as they are supported by some evidence.

10. In the present case, there is nothing on record to demonstrate that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in violation of law or that the conclusion reached is vitiated by procedural irregularity or mala fides. Once the competent authority has considered the matter