ORDER: Pursuant to the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner for certain alleged misconduct and the enquiry held thereon, the third respondent by his proceedings dated 6.11.2001, dismissed the petitioner from the service of B.T. Assistant in the third respondent-school. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner seeks to issue of a certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the third respondent-management dated 6.11.2001 and quash the same and consequently direct the third respondent-management to reinstate the petitioner with back wages with all attendant service benefits thereto. 2.1. According to the third respondent-management, on 30.1.2001 afternoon, while the petitioner was expected to take class for ‘IX C’ during the seventh period viz., between 1.30 and 2.15 p.m., he was found missing in the class room by the Correspondent at 1.40 p.m. and the students were restless, disturbing other classes. On the other hand, he was noticed sleeping in the staff room. When an explanation is called upon in this regard from the petitioner, in the memo dated 30.1.2001, the petitioner, by his reply dated 31.1.2001, explained that he was suffering from mild fever and severe cough from 29.1.2001 itself and therefore he had availed casual leave on 29.1.2001 and on the advice of the doctor, he took Benedryl cough syrup, as a result of which he felt drowsy during the said period. However, not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the third respondent framed the following four charges against the petitioner, as communicated in the charge memo dated 2.2.2001 by the correspondent, third respondent. "Charge No.1: That in gross neglect and derelicition of your duties, and laying a very bad example to the children, instead of taking the class and teaching the students in the 7th period for the children of Std. 9C on 30.1.2001, you were sleeping in the staff room, leaving the children of your class totally unattended and free to do what they liked, and disturbing the other children in the other class rooms with their noise and din. If proved, this charge would amount to gross negligence and dereliction in the discharge of your duties, besides being an act of gross misconduct and indiscipline. If proved, this charge would amount to gross negligence and dereliction in the discharge of your duties, besides being an act of gross misconduct and indiscipline. Charge No.2: That though in your explanation 2nd above maintained, you have stated that this was because you were ill even the previous day, i.e., on 29.1.2001, on that day you had in fact taken casual leave and not medical leave, besides, no medical certificate of your alleged illness had also been submitted by you. You have therefore, totally misrepresented the facts. If proved, this charge would also amount to gross misrepresentation and misconduct. Charge No.3: That though it is alleged by you that because of your taking Benedryl cough syrup, which caused drowsiness, and so sitting in the staff room you had dozed off during the 6th period. It is seen that on the very same day of the 30th, you have taken classes earlier and taught the students of Std. 9B in the first period, of Std.10A in the 2nd period and Std.8C in the 4th period, and as such, this explanation given by you is totally false and incorrect. Charge No.4: That on the enquiries made from the various class children and others, it is learnt that even during teaching in the period, you are in the regular habit of sleeping off even in the classroom instead of teaching the children. If proved, this charge would also amount to gross misconduct, indiscipline, your liability and incapability to discharge your duties as a teacher." 2.2. On receipt of the said charge memo dated 2.2.001, the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation on 5.2.2001, denying all the charges. However, not satisfied with the explanation dated 5.2.2001, the third respondent by his proceedings dated 9.2.2001, placed the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect, which reads as follows: "St. Joseph’s Anglo-Indian Boys’ Higher Secondary School, Vepery, Chennai-600 007 Phone: 5389439 By Hand Delivery 9.2.2001 To Mr.A.Johnson B.T. Asst. TeacherSt. Joseph Ang-Indian Boys’ Higher Secondary School Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Dear Sir, Sub: Gross misconduct and negligence in the discharge of duty- reg. Ref: (1) Our memo dt. 30.01.2001 to you. (2) Your explanation dt. 31.01.2001 (3) Our charge sheet dt. 2.2.2001. (4) Your explanation dt. TeacherSt. Joseph Ang-Indian Boys’ Higher Secondary School Vepery, Chennai-600 007. Dear Sir, Sub: Gross misconduct and negligence in the discharge of duty- reg. Ref: (1) Our memo dt. 30.01.2001 to you. (2) Your explanation dt. 31.01.2001 (3) Our charge sheet dt. 2.2.2001. (4) Your explanation dt. 5.2.2001 With reference to the above, as the charges against you are very grave and serious, and as the explanation 4th above mentioned given by our is not satisfactory, it has been decided to put you under suspension with immediate effect. You are, therefore, hereby informed that your are placed under suspension with immediate effect, pending enquiry and instructions have also been given to the watchman not to permit you to enter the school premises without the specific permission of the undersigned. Yours faithfully, (Sd/-) Fr. Standley Sebastian Correspondent St.Josephs Ango-Indian Boys’ Higher Secondary School, Vepery, Chennai [Italics supplied]“ 2.3. Following the said order of suspension dated 9.2.2001 an enquiry officer was appointed by the third respondent in his proceedings dated 9.2.2001 to conduct an enquiry on the said charges. Pursuant to the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, as the third respondent had not paid the subsistence allowance for April and May, 2001, and the same was complained by the petitioner, the third respondent by his proceedings dated 7.6.2001, framed four fresh set of charges with regard to the alleged grievance of the petitioner either for non-payment or belated payment of subsistence allowance and those additional four set of charges reads as follows: ”Charge No.1: You are aware that it is the routine practice of the Management to deposit the salary of all the teachers etc., into the Bank in a lump sum every month. The respective and individual teachers etc., thereafter, come and obtain their Pay slips from the management, and then draw their monthly salary, directly from the Bank, and no direct disbursement is every made by the Management. While this is the practice, other than coming on 27.3.2001 and 27.4.2001, and collecting your Subsistence Allowance cheque, you have not at all come to the School to collect your other Substance Allowance cheque, but are instead falsely accusing the Management of non-payment and/or belated payment of the Subsistence Allowance. Your contention, therefore, that your Subsistence Allowance was not given to you and that too belatedly, is totally false and fraudulent. Your contention, therefore, that your Subsistence Allowance was not given to you and that too belatedly, is totally false and fraudulent. If proved, this charge would amount to gross misconducts and indiscipline on your part. Charge No.2: You have deliberately and wantonly not come to collect your Subsistence Allowance cheque/s, even though, out of Courtesy the Management had by its letters detailed below, intimated to you to come and collect your subsistence allowance cheques. (i) Dt. 8.3.2001 (being the allowance for February, 2001) (ii) Dt. 31.3.2001 (being the allowance for March, 2001) (iii) Dt. 7.5.2001 (being the allowance for April, 2001) and (iv) Dt. 1.6.2001 (being the allowance for May, 2001) Inspite of these communications, you chose to delay and take your own sweet time to come and collect your subsistence allowance cheques, and came and collected your subsistence allowance cheque for the month of February, 2001 only on 27.3.2001, and for the month of March, 2001 only on 27.4.2001, though the said cheques had been made ready very much earlier. You have therefore never come to collect your cheques for the months of April and May, 2001, but are still falsely accusing the Management of belated payment and non-payment of the Subsistence Allowance. If proved, this charge would amount to gross misconduct, misrepresentation, indisciplining and an attempt to deliberately tarnish and bring down the name, reputation and image of the school. Charge No.3: Being on suspension, it is your duty to inform the Management whenever you shift your residence out of City of Chennai, plus also give your forwarding address thereof to the Management. But, on your own admission, you have been living out of the City and staying in Madurai without giving any information thereof to the Management, for giving your forwarding address thereof. If proved, this charge would amount to gross misconduct and indiscipline on your part. Charge No.4: Inspite of the fact that you had intimated the Management by your telegram dated 3.6.2001 that you would not be coming and attending the domestic enquiry on 5.6.2001, you have deliberately and with ulterior intentions come to the school on 5.6.2001, and demanded your cheques for your subsistence allowance, knowing fully well that 4.5.2001, was a public holiday, and have thereafter to create a false record send a telegram that your telegraphic notice calling for payment of subsistence allowance has not been considered appropriately. This has been fraudulently done by you, only to further tarnish the name, reputation and image of the school.“ 2.4. Along with the additional charge memo dated 7.6.2001 referred to above, the petitioner was served with another order of suspension by his proceedings dated 7.6.2001 by the third respondent Correspondent, which reads as follows: ”St.Joseph’s Anglo-Indian Boys’ Higher Secondary School, Vepery, Chennai-600 007 Phone: 5389439 By Hand Delivery 7.6.2001 To Mr.A.Johnson B.T. Asst. Teacher No. 112, Ashtabujam Road Choolai, Chennai 600 112. Dear Sir, Sub: Gross misconduct and false misrepresentation reg. Ref: 1) Our charge sheet dt. 2.2.2001 to you. 2) Your Telegram dt. 4.6.2001 to us and to the Enquiry Officer. 3) Your Telegram dt. 5.6.2001 to the Enquiry Officer. With reference to the above, as the charges against you are very grave and serious, it has been decided to put you under suspension with immediate effect. You are, therefore, hereby informed that you are placed under suspension with immediate effect, pending enquiry and instructions have also been given to the watchman not to permit you to enter the school premises without the specific permission of the undersigned. Yours faithfully, (Sd/-) Fr. Standley Sebastian Correspondent St.Josephs Ango-Indian Boys’ Higher Secondary School, Vepery, Chennai. 2.5. Even though, the petitioner preferred W.P.No.11401 of 2001, challenging the original order of suspension dated 9.2.2001, contending that the same was non-est in law in view of the fresh order of suspension dated 7.6.2001 and that the original order of suspension dated 9.2.2001 could not be kept in force beyond a reasonable time, this Court, by an order dated 20.6.2001, rejected the case of the petitioner for want of prima facie case, presumably taking into consideration the pendency of the disciplinary action. As against this order, an appeal was filed in W.A.No.1131 of 2001. 2.6. As the petitioner was required to submit an explanation to the additional charges framed in the proceedings dated 7.6.2001, the petitioner, by his explanation dated 22.6.2001, again denied the same. As a result, all the eight charges were referred to the enquiry officer. 2.7. As against this order, an appeal was filed in W.A.No.1131 of 2001. 2.6. As the petitioner was required to submit an explanation to the additional charges framed in the proceedings dated 7.6.2001, the petitioner, by his explanation dated 22.6.2001, again denied the same. As a result, all the eight charges were referred to the enquiry officer. 2.7. Of course, after permitting the petitioner to represent through his counsel and giving him a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, the enquiry officer in his report dated 18.10.2001, found that the charges 2 and 4 in the charge memo dated 2.2.2001 were not proved and the charge Nos.1 and 3 in the charge memo dated 2.2.2001 as well as all the four charges in the charge memo dated 7.6.2001 were proved. Based on the findings of the enquiry officer, in the report dated 18.10.2001, a second show cause notice was served on the petitioner and the petitioner submitted an explanation dated 1.11.2001. Again, not satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the third respondent terminated the service of the petitioner by order dated 6.11.2001, which is impugned in the above writ petition. 2.8. In view of the subsequent development, namely passing of the order of termination dated 6.11.2001, the writ appeal in W.A.No.1131 of 2001 preferred against the order dated 9.2.2001, was disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by an order dated 19.9.2003, giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the issue relating to the suspension as well as his entitlement to the salary for the said period. 3.1.1. Assailing the impugned order of termination dated 6.11.2001, learned senior counsel Mr.K.Chandru contends that the very charges framed against the petitioner with respect to the alleged misconduct are trivial in nature and the findings of the enquiry officer holding that the charges 1 and 3 of the charge memo dated 2.2.2001 and the charges 1 to 4 of the charge memo dated 7.6.2001 are proved, is perverse. In this regard, my attention is invited to the respective charge memos, the explanation offered by the petitioner and the findings of the enquiry officer on the same. In other words, it is contended that the respondent-management as well as the enquiry officer failed to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner properly. 3.1.2. In this regard, my attention is invited to the respective charge memos, the explanation offered by the petitioner and the findings of the enquiry officer on the same. In other words, it is contended that the respondent-management as well as the enquiry officer failed to appreciate the explanation offered by the petitioner properly. 3.1.2. Learned senior counsel, pointed out to the memo dated 30.1.2001 served on the petitioner, in which it is stated the Correspondent, during his rounds found that the petitioner was missing from the class during the 7th period on 30.1.2001, but was found sleeping in the staff room. He submits that when the petitioner offered an explanation that he was feeling drowsy due to the Benedryl cough syrup taken by him as he was suffering from mild fever and severe cough on 29.1.2001, the third respondent ought to have accepted the said explanation. 3.1.3. Learned counsel further submits that assuming the petitioner’s absence in the class at 1.40 p.m. on 30.1.2001 amounts to misconduct, it could only be a minor misconduct, inasmuch as, as per the attendance register, it is not in dispute that the petitioner attended the class ‘IX C’ viz., from 1.30 to 2.15 p.m. and had taken class to the students on Industrial Chemistry. Therefore, it is contended that the findings of the enquiry officer on the charge Nos.1 and 3 in the charge memo dated 2.2.2001 is perverse. 3.2. With regard to the charge Nos.1, 2 and 4 of the charge memo dated 7.6.2001, it is contended that the petitioner having been placed under suspension from 9.2.2001, is entitled to seek subsistence allowance as a matter of right. When the petitioner was not permitted to enter into the school to claim the same, he could not be blamed that he did come to the school to collect the subsistence allowance cheques. Hence, the findings with regard to the charges 1, 2 and 4 of the charge memo dated 7.6.2001 are not substainable in law. 3.3. When the petitioner was not permitted to enter into the school to claim the same, he could not be blamed that he did come to the school to collect the subsistence allowance cheques. Hence, the findings with regard to the charges 1, 2 and 4 of the charge memo dated 7.6.2001 are not substainable in law. 3.3. As to the only remaining charge, viz., charge No.3 in the charge memo dated 7.6.2001, that the petitioner left the headquarters namely the City of Chennai, without giving any information to the management, it is contended that in the absence of any direction to that effect, either in the suspension order dated 9.2.2001 or the order dated 7.6.2001, he could not be charged for his absence from the headquarters. In any event, it is contended that the charge No.3 cannot be construed as a major misconduct warranting an order of termination of service; and that the management ought to have accepted the explanation offered to the said charge No.3 in the charge memo dated 7.6.2001, that he never shifted his family permanently outside the headquarters namely the City of Chennai, except occasionally to seek financial assistance from his parents, who are at Madurai. The failure to appreciate the above explanation offered by the petitioner is arbitrary. 4.1.Per contra, Mr.Bahety, learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents, while not disputing the fact that the petitioner attended the 7th period between 1.30 to 2.15 p.m. and took class for ‘IX C’ on Industrial Chemistry, contended that the absence of the petitioner at 1.40 p.m. in the said class namely ‘IX C’ is a grave misconduct and took a serious preliminary objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition as the petitioner could only agitate against the impugned order by way of an appeal under Sec.23 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, since the impugned order of dismissal is passed under Sec.22 of the Act. In this regard, he also invited my attention to paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit dated 16.2.2004, which reads as follows: “3. In this regard, he also invited my attention to paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit dated 16.2.2004, which reads as follows: “3. I most respectfully submit that under Sec.23 of the said Act read with Rule 18 of THE TAMIL NADU RECOGNISED PRIVATE SCHOOLS (REGULATION) RULES, 1974, only an appeal has to be filed, and will lie, by the petitioner, to the Joint Director of School Education, against his dismissal, and this writ filed without exhausting the said statutory remedy is not maintainable.” 4.2. According to the learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents, charge Nos.1 and 3 of the charge memo dated 9.2.2001, having been found proved by the enquiry officer, such finding cannot be interfered with either by appreciating or re-appreciating the evidence on record, while exercising the power of judicial review conferred under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, even though other view than the one taken by the enquiry officer is possible in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.3. Even though Mr.Bahety fairly concedes that the third respondent-Correspondent by his order of suspension dated 9.2.2001 and 7.6.2001 observed that instructions have been given to the watchman not to permit the petitioner to enter into the school, still contends that the accusations made about the non payment or delayed payment of subsistence allowance, is a serious misconduct as found by the enquiry officer. 4.4. With regard to the contention of the petitioner that no conditions are imposed in the orders of suspension dated 9.2.2001 and 7.6.2001, that the petitioner should not leave the headquarters during the disciplinary proceedings without the prior permission of the management, leaned counsel for the respondents submits that the absence of the petitioner and the shifting of his residence outside Chennai without prior or information to the management, is a grave misconduct. 5. I have given careful consideration to the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents. 6. In the light of the above rival contentions of the parties, the following substantial issues arise for consideration. (i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable in law in view of the appeal provision provided under Sec.23 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973, as contended by the learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents? 6. In the light of the above rival contentions of the parties, the following substantial issues arise for consideration. (i) Whether the writ petition is maintainable in law in view of the appeal provision provided under Sec.23 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools Regulation Act, 1973, as contended by the learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents? (ii) Whether the order of termination dated 6.11.2001, impugned in the writ petition, is sustainable in law? (iii) To what relief the petitioner is entitled to? 7.1.Issue No.1: Whether the writ petition is maintainable in law in view of the appeal provision provided under Sec.23 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973, as contended by the learned counsel for the third and fourth respondents? 7.2. It is true that Sec.23 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act 1973, provides for an appeal against the orders of dismissal, removal etc., which reads as follows. Sec.23: Appeal against orders of punishment imposed on teachers and other persons employed in private schools: Any teacher or other person employed in any private school- (a) who is dismissed, removed or reduced in rank or whose appointment is otherwise terminated; or (b) whose pay or allowance or any of whose conditions of service are altered, or interpreted to his disadvantage, by any order, may prefer an appeal against such order to such authority or officer as may be prescribed; and different such authorities or officer as may be prescribed for different classes of private schools. Explanation: In such section, the expression ‘order’ includes any order made on or after the date of the commencement of this Act in any disciplinary proceeding which was pending on that date." 7.3. The orders of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank made under Sec.22 of the Act alone could be dealt under Sec.23 of the Act. Sec.22 of the Act reads as follows: Sec.22: Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension of teachers or other persons employed in private schools: (1) Subject to any rule that may be made in this behalf, no teacher or any other person employed in any private school shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank nor shall his appointment be otherwise terminated except with the prior approval of the competent authority. (2) Where the proposal to dismiss, remove or reduce in rank or otherwise terminate the appointment of any teacher or other person employed in any private school is communicated to the competent authority, that authority shall, if it is satisfied that there are adequate and reasonable grounds for such proposal, approve such dismissal, remove, reduction in rank or termination of appointment. (3)(a) No teacher or other person employed in any private school shall be placed under suspension, except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct, within the meaning of the Code of Conduct prescribed under Sub-sec.(1) of Sec.21, of such teacher or other person is contemplated. (4) No such suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such inquiry is not completed within that period, such teacher or other person shall, without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored as teacher or other employee; Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing extend the said period of two months, for a further period not exceeding two months, if in the opinion of such competent authority, the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly attributable to such teacher or other person." [Italics supplied] 7.4. At the outset, even though Mr.Bahety, learned counsel for the third and fourth respondent contended that an appeal would lie against the impugned order dated 6.11.2001, passed by the third respondent herein. I am unable to appreciate the same, as the school in question, is a minority institution, to which Secs.22 and 23 of the Tamil Nadu Private Schools (Regulation) Act, 1973 are not applicable. That apart, even if the arguments of Mr.Bahety that Secs.22 and 23 of the said Act are applicable to the third respondent institution, which in my considered opinion is not only erroneous but also suicidal in effect, the impugned order is at the outset liable to be quashed for want of prior approval as contemplated under Sec.22(1) of the Act. 7.5. In any event, since Secs.22 and 23 of the Act are not applicable to the third respondent minority institution, the petitioner is entitled to approach this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order of termination. The first issue is therefore answered in positive. 7.5. In any event, since Secs.22 and 23 of the Act are not applicable to the third respondent minority institution, the petitioner is entitled to approach this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order of termination. The first issue is therefore answered in positive. 8.1.Issue No.2: Whether the order of termination dated 6.11.2001, impugned in the writ petition, is sustainable in law? 8.2. It is settled law that in a matter of disciplinary action, the disciplinary authority or enquiry officer or punishing authority should take into consideration the nature of the alleged misconduct and the explanation offered thereto before arriving at the findings as well as imposing the punishment for the same. Any lapse in this regard, either by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority would certainly empower this Court to interfere with the decisions taken thereon. It is true that while exercising powers of judicial review under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, it may not be proper for this Court to either appreciate or re-appreciate the evidence relied on by the enquiry officer or to disturb the findings therein even though another view than the one taken by the enquiry officer is possible. But, if the very charges are baseless, and the findings were arrived at by the enquiry officer, ignoring the explanation offered by the delinquent employee totally, and the same are perverse for want of evidence, and the third respondent-management proposed to dismiss the delinquent employee without application of mind, certainly this Court could interfere with such findings as well as the decision taken thereon by the management as the same are arbitrary and capricious. 8.3. In the instant case, a memo was served on the petitioner on 30.1.2001, as he was not found in the class room during the 7th period at 1.40 p.m., when the correspondent was on his rounds. The attendance register shows that the petitioner attended the 7th period and took class on Industrial Chemistry to the students of "IX C" and the same is also not disputed by the management. When the petitioner chose to submit his explanation that he was advised by the doctor to take Benedryl syrup as he was suffering from mild fever and severe cough even from the previous day viz., on 29.1.2001 on which date he had availed casual leave, the respondent ought to have accepted the same. When the petitioner chose to submit his explanation that he was advised by the doctor to take Benedryl syrup as he was suffering from mild fever and severe cough even from the previous day viz., on 29.1.2001 on which date he had availed casual leave, the respondent ought to have accepted the same. But, to the contrary, the respondent had chosen to frame another charge to the effect that he had availed casual leave but not medical leave on the previous day. This approach of the management obviously exposes the arbitrariness and mala fide on their part. Of course, the charge that the petitioner, took casual leave instead of medical leave, was not accepted by the enquiry officer. When an explanation was offered that his absence at 1.40 p.m., was on medical grounds, the management ought to have given due weightage to the same as it was the case of the management themselves that inspite of his ill health the petitioner has taken classes to the students of ‘IXB’, ‘XA’ and ‘VIIIC’ etc. during the first, second and fourth period on the same day i.e., on 30.1.2001. 8.4. Similarly, as found in the orders of suspension dated 9.2.2001 and 7.6.2001, the management had instructed the watchman not to permit the petitioner to enter into the school and thus, the petitioner was prevented to enter into the school. If that be so, the allegation that the petitioner has made accusations against the management for non-payment or delayed payment of subsistence allowance on the ground that he failed to collect the subsistence allowance cheques from the management, is again liable to be rejected. Such grievance of the petitioner who was under suspension could not be termed either as a misconduct or a misrepresentation, amounting to tarnish the image and reputation of the institution. Therefore, the charges 1, 2 and 4 of the charge memo dated 7.6.2001 are not only baseless, but also the findings of the enquiry officer that the same were proved, is perverse. 8.5. Further more, when the petitioner was under suspension and there is no condition imposed on the order of suspension that he should not shift his family outside the headquarters., i.e., the City of Chennai, I do not find any necessity to frame a charge to the effect that the petitioner committed a serious misconduct by shifting his residence. 8.5. Further more, when the petitioner was under suspension and there is no condition imposed on the order of suspension that he should not shift his family outside the headquarters., i.e., the City of Chennai, I do not find any necessity to frame a charge to the effect that the petitioner committed a serious misconduct by shifting his residence. When the petitioner is under suspension, the only condition that could be imposed on him is that he should make himself available within the headquarters. But, he should not be prevented from shifting his family to Madurai due to financial constrains. In any event, the explanation offered by the petitioner in this regard that his absence from the city of Chennai was only occasional and not permanent and that too only for the purpose of having financial assistance from his parents at Madurai ought to have been duly appreciated by the management. The charge in this regard, which brings from the order of suspension, is totally mala fide and arbitrary. But for the order of suspension, it is obvious that the very charge would not have come into existence. It is too harsh to suspend a person with a direction not to permit him inside the school, and then framing another charge for his failure to contact the management to receive the subsistence allowance cheques and thus causing a delay in the payment of subsistence allowance and finding fault on him for occasionally leaving the place of employment for financial assistance. This approach of the management apparently establishes the mala fide and arbitrary exercise. 8.6. It is settled law that the Court should not interfere with the administrator’s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that, it was in definance of logic or moral standards. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. But, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/tribunal, this Court can interfere. Further, to shorten the litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. But, if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the Court/tribunal, this Court can interfere. Further, to shorten the litigation it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In the normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, videUnited commercial Bank v. P.C.Kakkar, (2003)4 S.C.C. 364 . 8.7. In any event, even assuming the charges are held proved, the punishment imposed namely order of termination from service, is liable to be quashed as the same is excessive and shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct alleged against him. 8.8. For all the reasons stated above, the impugned charges are baseless, the findings arrived at by the enquiry officer are based on no evidence and therefore the same are perverse, and consequently, the punishment imposed by the management is arbitrary, perverse and shockingly disproportionate to the allegations made against the petition and therefore the entire proceedings is liable to be held as mala fide, arbitrary and capricious. Hence, I am inclined to quash the impugned proceedings dated 6.11.2001, with a direction to the third respondent to pass an order of reinstatement with backwages and all other attendant benefits. The writ petition is allowed. No costs.