Judgment :- This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the first respondent dated 22.8.1998 terminating the petitioner's services and for a direction to reinstate the, petitioner with backwages with continuity of service. 2. The petitioner, after completing his Secondary grade teacher training during 1975 to 1977, has worked in various schools under the management of the first respondent Diocese, as a substitute teacher. He was regularly appointed as a Secondary grade teacher on 1.6.1981 in St. Thomas Middle school, Kurichi, Melapalayam, which is under the control of the first respondent Diocese. Later, he was transferred to, BishopRoche R.C. Primary School, Keela Ambalaseri under the control of the first respondent Diocese. He also passed B.A. (History) in the year 1982, M.A. (History) in the year 1984 and obtained B.Ed., degree. The petitioner was promoted, as Headmaster in the Middle School at Somanathaperi. On 10.6.1985. Since, at that time the post of Headmaster in a Middle School required B.Ed., degree holder which the petitioner was possessing, Rev.Fr.A.Peter Raja, who was the Correspondent and Founder of St.Mary's Higher Secondary" School at Pothakalanvillai, asked him to resign from the post of Headmaster and promised him the school after the retirement of the then master K. Mariapankaras, who was due to retire in 1992. He also wrote a letter this, regard. Then, the petitioner resigned, Headmaster's post and has joined P.G. Assistant in History in the third FP4 dent school on 1.2.1989 and the petitioner made as. First P.G.Assistant, next to the Head master since the petitioner was having some experience. 3. It was only when Rev.Fr.P.Peter Raja was transferred in 199.1 and Rev.Fr.A.J.Rexj as Correspondent, problems arose. The petitioner was made the 8th P.G.Assistant, junior most among the P.G. Assistants, inst of being promoted to the post of Headmaster as already, promised by Rev.Fr.Peter even though the petitioner was possessing, required qualifications. The first respond instead of promoting the petitioner as Headmaster, brought one Mr. S.M. Joseph. 1-12-1994 as Headmaster. The petitioner made an appeal to the Joint Director of Higher, Secondary Education on 27.12.1994 against the appointment of Mr.S.M.Joseph as Headmaster The, Joint Director called for remarks from Management and the petitioner had, also issued a legal notice, which was the basis for the inimical developments between the petitioner the first respondent. S.M. Joseph. 1-12-1994 as Headmaster. The petitioner made an appeal to the Joint Director of Higher, Secondary Education on 27.12.1994 against the appointment of Mr.S.M.Joseph as Headmaster The, Joint Director called for remarks from Management and the petitioner had, also issued a legal notice, which was the basis for the inimical developments between the petitioner the first respondent. The third respondent issued a memo dated 3.3.1995, asking for an explanation from the petitioner respond about the legal notice of the petitioner. By way of reply, the petitioner has also stated incidentally that he was a 8 M.A.Degrees holder. Further, the third respondent issued a memo pa 31.7.1995 directing the petitioner to produce the 8 M.A.Degrees, which, the petitioner has made a, mention of in his appeal to t Director. It is also the case of the petitioner that even though he was qualified in psychology he was not given Psychology subject 'in the Higher Secondary classes and some un qualified persons were directed to take Psy­chology class, which was an insult to him. The third respondent passed an order on 20.2.1996 directing to recover an amount of Rs.28,295 towards incentive increments given to petitioner for M.Ed. Qualification, stating that the incen­tive was given to him for the second time and the petitioner had filed a writ petition in, W.P.No.3480 of 1996, 'wherein stay was granted. 4. In those circumstances, a charge memo Was issued to the petitioner on 2.7,1996 on the following grounds: "(1) The petitioner failed I to produce M.A.degree inspite of repeated requests. (2) The petitioner abused the Correspondent and created indiscipline among students. (3) The petitioner cheated the management and education department by suppressing the 'fact of possessing a service book issued to him in 1977 and got opened a second ser­vice book by making false representations solely with the intention of getting service benefits. (4) He misrepresented facts And gave false information to the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) in an appeal claiming Headmaster post. (5) The petitioner willfully disobeyed the or­ders by refusing to sign in the note of advice sent to him in token of having seen it. (6) The petitioner absented for two days in June 1995. (7) The petitioner made grunting noise on 11.12.1995 when the Correspondent crossed the staff room." 5. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 9.8.1996, denying the charges. (6) The petitioner absented for two days in June 1995. (7) The petitioner made grunting noise on 11.12.1995 when the Correspondent crossed the staff room." 5. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 9.8.1996, denying the charges. After the explanation was received, the, petitioner WA s under suspension by order dated 31.1.1997 and, the petitioner again approached this court and filed a writ petition in W.P.No 1514 of 1997 and obtained stay of the suspension order. The stay continued and the Writ petition was disposed on 22.8.1997 direct­ing the Management to complete the, enquiry within 4 months. The writ appeal preferred against the stay order by the Management was also dismissed on 20.10.1997. The first respon­dent Writ appointed an Enquiry Officer, who was a retired official of the Education Department 'and was advising the school on various mat­ters. In the enquiry, the Management exam­ined 7 witness and marked documents, Exs.M­ I to M-58. On the side of the petitioner, 8 witnesses including the petitioner himself were examined and 30 documents in Ex.T- 1 to T-30 were marked. The Enquiry Officer gave a re­port holding that charges 1,3,4 and 7 were proved and the rest of the charges were not proved. A second show cause notice was is­ sued on 17.8.1998 proposing to dismiss the petitioner from service, for which the petitioner submitted his explanation on 20.8.1998. The Management passed the impugned order dated 22.8.1998 dismissing the petitioner from ser­vice. 6. The case of the petitioner is that the dis­missal order is against the principles of natural justice that the Enquiry Officer was totally bi­ased against the petitioner for the reason that the petitioner has complained against the En­quiry Officer when he was a Secretary of Association of Veteran Employees of Minority Academic Recognised Institutions of all kind (Ave Maria). The fact that the lawyer's notice was issued on behalf of the petitioner was treated as insubordination. It is also the case of the petitioner that it is not correct that he has not produced 8 M.A.Degrees; that he has passed 5 M.A.Degrees long back and 3 M.A. Degrees later. The petitioner also states that submitting the appeal for redressal of the grievance that he was entitled for the post of Headmaster and making an appeal to the Education Authority can not at all be treated as a charge. The petitioner also states that submitting the appeal for redressal of the grievance that he was entitled for the post of Headmaster and making an appeal to the Education Authority can not at all be treated as a charge. It is also the case of the petitioner that he did not make any grunting noise when-the Correspondent was crossing the staff room and in that regard, even the charge is incorrect. That apart, it is also the case of the petitioner that not even one of the charges levelled against him is covered by the Code of Conduct prescribed as an Annexure under Sec.21 of T.N.R.D.S. (Regulation) Act. 7. On behalf of the respondents 1 to 3, a counter affidavit has been filed. According to respondents 1 to 3, the Enquiry Officer has rich experience in the field of Administration of Education. In fact, after the petitioner raised an objection about the Enquiry Officer by name Nelson Devadoss, one M.Kasi was later on appointed as Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry. It is also the specific case of the respondents in the counter that in the letter dated 28.8.1998, the petitioner has alleged various malpractices against the first respondent, including that of corruption in the administration and the said charges, were raised by the petitioner as Secretary of the Association of Veteran Employees of Minority Academic Recognised Institutions. Respondents 1 to 3 also specifically denied the allegation that S.M.Joseph was promoted against the norms. It is stated that S.M.Joseph was having al 1 requisite educational qualifications and teaching experience and accordingly, respondents I to 3 invoked their power to appoint the said S.M. Joseph as Headmaster and he has also assumed charge in the said capacity on 1.12.1994 and continuously functioned and subsequently retired. It is also the case of the respondent that as on 1.12.1994, the petitioner was lacking in the basic qualification as he was having only 5 years teaching experience P.G. Assistant. Therefore, the allegation of fides against the respondent is baseless. It also not correct to state that the lawyer's notice issued by the petitioner alone was the son for dismissal of the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted in a detailed manner and on the basis of the detailed enquiry report and after analysing the evidence, the dismissal order was passed and the petitioner cannot have any grievance against it in law. It also not correct to state that the lawyer's notice issued by the petitioner alone was the son for dismissal of the petitioner. Enquiry was conducted in a detailed manner and on the basis of the detailed enquiry report and after analysing the evidence, the dismissal order was passed and the petitioner cannot have any grievance against it in law. At the time the petitioner was appointed as P.G. Assistant in third respondent institution, he deliberately suppressed the fact of his service in various other institutions and also the fact of his getting incentive increments and caused a new Service Register, i.e., T.S.R. to be opened without reference to the said facts. Therefore, this would amount to suppression of material facts. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for petitioner and the respondents. 9. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, charges 1, 3, 4 and 7 stated to have been held proved by the Enquiry Officer would not amount to misconduct at all. According the learned counsel for the petitioner, the charges are malafide and all the charges were framed due to the reason that being an office bearer of the Association, he has brought some of the substantial irregularities committed by the management, especially in respect of various demands made by the teachers, which were grave in nature. It is also further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that filing of an appeal to the Joint rector of School Education is only to ventilate his grievance, that he is entitled for the post Headmaster not because that he stated that was possessing 8 M.A. Degrees, but that previous Appointing Authority, as referred above, had given a written promise that petitioner would be posted as Headmaster, it was in, that appeal, he has made reference about 8 M.A. Degrees and in fact, the petitioner has substantiated with regard to that claim and it is not even the case of the respondents that the appeal was rejected by the Joint Director Pf School Education in view of his failure to place 8 M.A. Degrees. 10. The further case of the petitioner is that the Enquiry / Officer has not conducted enquiry properly and even the' explanation submitted by the petitioner was not taken in its proper perspective. The learned counsel also drew my attention to the various portions in the evidence of the witnesses. 11. 10. The further case of the petitioner is that the Enquiry / Officer has not conducted enquiry properly and even the' explanation submitted by the petitioner was not taken in its proper perspective. The learned counsel also drew my attention to the various portions in the evidence of the witnesses. 11. Learned counsel also submitted that the witnesses examined on the side of the petitioner have categorically deposed that there was no charge against him during his tenure as a teacher. Learned counsel also contended that the enquiry is quasi-judicial in nature and when two sets of evidence are available, both the evidence must be considered for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion for imposing the proportionate punishment. 12. The learned counsel would further contend that the non-cross-examination by the Management of the witnesses examined on the petitioner's side has not been taken note of while passing the impugned order. In that regard, a reference was made to a judgment of his Court passed in Management of Jeeva Transport Corporation Limited, represented by & Managing Director, Erode v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal of Tamil Nadu Madras and another, (2002) 2 L.L.N. 704. That was relating to the case of a driver of a Transport Corporation causing death due to his negligent driving and damaging the bus. It was held by this Court that non-examination of the conductor and an eye-witness, but relying on only the Junior Engineer who was not an eye-witness, was improper and the order of the Tribunal disagreeing with the view of the Enquiry Officer was held unjustified. The learned counsel has also contended that in any event, the punishment of dismissal awarded on the charges framed against the petitioner was disproportionate and therefore, this Court can interfere in respect of ' the punishment. 13. On the other hand, it is contended on behalf of the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 that in respect of the incentives sought to be recovered, the matter is pending in writ appeal before this Court. Learned counsel relied upon a document marked on the side of the Management, Ex.M-28, which is a letter purported to have been sent by the petitioner to Rev.Fr.A.Peter Raja, the Correspondent of St.Mary's Hr.Sec.School, Pothakalanvilai, in which he has clearly stated that he has paid Rs.15000 for equiping the laboratory just for his getting the headmaster's post. Learned counsel relied upon a document marked on the side of the Management, Ex.M-28, which is a letter purported to have been sent by the petitioner to Rev.Fr.A.Peter Raja, the Correspondent of St.Mary's Hr.Sec.School, Pothakalanvilai, in which he has clearly stated that he has paid Rs.15000 for equiping the laboratory just for his getting the headmaster's post. In the said letter, he has also stated clearly that he has never asked in writing his name to come in the top of the list of teachers, after the Headmaster. 14. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner has specifically admitted that for getting the post of Headmaster, he has paid such an amount to the previous Correspondent, which shows that the petitioner was not genuine in his case. The learned counsel also would contend that inasmuch as S.M.Joseph was also clearly qualified for the post of Headmaster, there is absolutely no question of any vengeance against the petitioner. 15. The learned counsel also states that eventhough the petitioner has stated in his appeal to the authority that he has 8 M.A.Degrees, he has not produced the same and the Management only required him to produce the degree, for which the petitioner has written a letter on 3.8.1995 stating that some of the statements of marks and certificates arc found miss­ing and that. he will search, for them and, if he finds the same', be will bring them for their pe­rusal. This is only an evasive reply according to respondents 1 to 3. The learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 has contended that the wit­nesses brought on the side of the petitioner were all, his relatives and were not worthy to be con­sidered.. Learned counsel also contended that it is not even the case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer is having some bias against him. The learned counsel relied upon a, Divi­sion Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India, represented by, The Additional Direc­tor General AV Ha Avadi, Chennai and another, v. Central Administrative Tribunal, represented by its Registrar. Learned counsel also contended that it is not even the case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer is having some bias against him. The learned counsel relied upon a, Divi­sion Bench judgment of this Court in Union of India, represented by, The Additional Direc­tor General AV Ha Avadi, Chennai and another, v. Central Administrative Tribunal, represented by its Registrar. High Court Buildings, Chennai and another, (2005) 4 M.L.J 104 , for the proposition that in the de­partmental proceedings, technical rule I s of evi­dence are not applicable and the guilt can be arrived at on the preponderance of probability­ This Court has also held that appreciation of evidence is the exclusive domain of the disci­plinary authority for considering the evidence on, record and render findings as to whether the charges have been proved or not and the Court or the, Tribunal has no power to arrive at its own conclusion. The learned counsel also would rely upon a, judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the Director General APF and Others, v. Ch.Sai babu, (2003)4 S.CC 331 , for the proposition, that punishment im­posed by the disciplinary authority could not be disturbed . by the High Court or a Tribunal ex­cept without further examining the. Relevant factors and if the punishment is found grossly or shockingly, disproportionate, such relevant factors includes the nature of the charges proved, the past conduct, penalty, imposed ear­lier, the nature of duties having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected and discipline required to be maintained, and department/establishment concerned. 16. According to the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 3 the nature of charges are proved are grave in nature and require any interference by this Court counsel further relied upon another judgment of Supreme Court, V. Ramana v. A.P.STRC v. and others (2005) 7 SCC 338 , for the proposition that unless punishment imposed is shocking to the conscience of the Court Our same should not be subjected to judicial review. 17. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in reply, has relied upon the Judgment the Supreme Court rendered in U.P. State Transport Corporation and others v. Mahesh Kumar Mishra and others (2000) 3 SCC 450 , holding that if it is justified, the High can interfere on the quantum of punishment Reference is also made in the said judgment about a 3 Judge Bench of the Supreme in B.C. Chaturvedi v Union of India, (1995) 6 S.CC.749, wherein the law has been laid, follows: "A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, on appeal the appellate authority, being finding authorities have exclusive power to consider. the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” 18. The learned counsel also would submit that the Apex Court has laid down the law in categorical terms that if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate to the charges held proved against the diligent, it will be open to the Court to interfere. 19. I have carefully considered the rival submissions made on both sides. 20. At the outset, this Court has allowed detailed argument for the reason that the petitioner was not having any right of appeal to the Education Authorities inasmuch as the relevant provisions under T.N.R.D.S.(R) Act relating to the disciplinary proceedings, are not applicable to the minority institutions. This Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 cannot make a roving enquiry about the domestic enquiry and if the charges are having some substance, this Court cannot interfere with the findings arrived at the domestic enquiry. Now, turning to the charges leveled against the petitioner stated above out of 7 charges, 4 charges are stated to have been proved as per the enquiry report based on which the impugned order has been passed. Now, turning to the charges leveled against the petitioner stated above out of 7 charges, 4 charges are stated to have been proved as per the enquiry report based on which the impugned order has been passed. They are: "charge No.1, the petitioner failed to produce his eight M.A.Degrees inspite of repeated requests. charge No.3 ,the petitioner cheated the Management and Education Department by suppressing the fact of possessing a service book issued to him in 1977 and got opened a second service book by making false representations solely with the intention of getting service benefits. charge No.4, is the petitioner misrepresented facts and gave false information to 'the Joint Director of School Education (Higher Secondary) in his appeal claiming the Headmaster Post. charge No. 7, is the petitioner made grunting noise on 11.12.1995 when the Correspondent crossed the staff room." 21. I have already narrated rival submissions made by counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents 1 to 3 apart from the facts narrated from the respective affidavits. A perusal of the enquiry report would prove that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in a detailed manner and gave sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. I find that there are overwhelming evidence in support of the charges proved. As brought to my notice by learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3, when the petitioner has stated that he had 8 M.A. Degrees, he owes a duty to produce the same before the authority when the same was required and the conduct of the petitioner in saying that some of the degrees were missing would only show that the petitioner has not come with clean hands. That apart if the petitioner before joining duty under the third respondent Management had served elsewhere he is duty bound to report the same to the third respondent Management and he ought to have produced the service book. It was his duty and he cannot have 2 service books at his whims and fancies. Therefore, in my considered view, there is nothing, for this Court to interfere with the enquiry report especially when it is not even the case of the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer was biased and has not considered the totality of the situation, I am of the considered view that the report of the Enquiry Officer is perfectly in accordance with law. 22. 22. Now, the only point which requires for consideration is as to whether the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the charges leveled and proved against the petitioner. Considering the charges which are basically not relating to the T.N.R.D.S.(R) Act or the rules made thereunder, there is no statutory force in respect of the charges. While one of the charges would show that the petitioner has misrepresented to the Joint Director of School Education, the fact remains that the previous Correspondent has given in writing that the petitioner will be considered for the post of Headmaster after the retirement of another person taking into consideration the experience of the petitioner. It is not also the case of the respondents I to 3 that the petitioner was in the habit of committing this sort of misconduct. For the charge relating to making grunting noise when the Correspondent crossed the staff room, I am not able to see any proper evidence. Even assuming that there was such a conduct that was in no way humiliating the Correspondent. Moreover, in respect of a person possessed of 8 M.A. Degrees in various subjects like the petitioner, even though the Management has got a right to seek the production of such certificates, it is not even the case of the Management that the certificates were pertinent to the required qualification. Therefore, in my considered view the punishment of dismissal is certainly shocking and grossly disproportionate to the charges proved. In any event this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Art.226 of the Constitution of India, cannot decide about the quantum of punishment and it is ultimately for the first respondent to decide in the light of the observations made herein and decision arrived at. In these circumstances, while holding that the report of the Enquiry Officer is quite correct in law, the matter is remitted back to the first respondent, only for the purpose of deciding afresh about the quantum of punishment in the light of observations made herein. 23. In the result the writ petition is ordered with the following directions, viz.: 1. It is held that the Enquiry Officer, port is perfectly in order and valid, 2. The punishment of dismissed improportionate to the charges pr against the petitioner. 23. In the result the writ petition is ordered with the following directions, viz.: 1. It is held that the Enquiry Officer, port is perfectly in order and valid, 2. The punishment of dismissed improportionate to the charges pr against the petitioner. Therefore, the, respondent is directed to reconsider quantum of punishment in the light of observation made herein and pass necessary orders in respect of quantum of punishment within 12 weeks from the day receipt of copy of this order. No costs.