Judgment :- Common Order: 1. Petitioner seeks to quash G.O.(D) No.101 Public Works (E2) Department, dated 07.03.2002 and Proceedings No.10107/E2/96-3 dated 23.02.1996 and subsequent, Show Cause Notice in Proceedings No.10107/E2/96-25 dated 24.05.2002 and to direct the Respondents to pay all the retirement benefits with interest at 12% p.a. as per G.O.Ms.No.122 Fin. dated 20.02.1995. 2. Since, common questions are involved and the Petitioner is one and the same in both Writ Petitions, both Writ Petitions shall be disposed of a common order. For easy reference, the parties are referred as per their rank in W.P.No.26734/2005. 3. The facts in nutshell, which lead to the filing of the Writ Petitions are as follows:- W.P.No.26734/2005: (i) On 04.07.1958, Petitioner was appointed as Lower Division Clerk in Public Works Department (PWD). Subsequently, he was promoted as Upper Division Clerk from 111. 1962; as Superintendent from 05.09.1984; as Divisional Accountant from 010. 1984 to 28.02.1991; as Store-Keeper Gr.I from 28.02.1991 and as Administrative Officer from 110. 1995 till the date of his superannuation on 30.04.1997. Though, the Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation on 30.04.1997, as charges are pending against him, he was not allowed to retire. He was suspended on 24. 1997 and was retained in service. .(ii) For the alleged theft of electrical materials worth Rs.48,150/-from electrical stores on 16.09.1993, a disciplinary action was also initiated under R.17(a) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules. A recovery order for Rs.48,150/- was passed by the Electrical Engineer, by proceedings dated 110. 1995. (iii) Challenging the said order, Petitioner has filed O.A.No.2108/96 before the Tribunal. As per the order of Tribunal, Charge Memo dated 111. 1997 was issued to the Petitioner under R.17(b) for the alleged theft of electrical materials worth Rs.48,150/-from the electrical stores on 16.09.1993. But the Charge for the loss sustained by the Government to a value of Rs.79,740/-was dropped. The Petitioner offered his explanation to the Charge Memo on 211. 1997. .(iv) An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. On the basis of Enquiry Officers report, the charge sheet papers were remitted to Govt. on 30.07.1998. The Enquiry Officers report was communicated to the Petitioner on 212. 1998. .(v) Petitioner submitted his representation dated 05.01.1999, which was also sent to Government on 11.01.1999. 1997. .(iv) An Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. On the basis of Enquiry Officers report, the charge sheet papers were remitted to Govt. on 30.07.1998. The Enquiry Officers report was communicated to the Petitioner on 212. 1998. .(v) Petitioner submitted his representation dated 05.01.1999, which was also sent to Government on 11.01.1999. Show Cause Notice was issued by Government on 04.01.2001, for recovery of Rs.48,150/- from DCRG and imposing a cut of Rs.200/-p.m. in the pension for a period of 12 months. The Government issued final orders on 07.03.2002 confirming the punishment. Challenging the order of punishment, Petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition. .W.P.No. 26735/2005: .(i) Alleging that during Petitioners tenure from 06.02.1986 to 212. 1989 as Divisional Accountant in the Chennai Division of the Construction Branch of the Industries and Commerce Department, Petitioner had failed to take effective steps to clear the huge minus balance from suspense head and thereby, caused delay in the preparation of completion report for the work, disciplinary proceedings was initiated against the Petitioner and two others under R.17(b). A Charge Memo dated 23.02.1996 was issued to the Petitioner for three counts. Pending disciplinary proceedings, Petitioner filed O.A.No.3940/1998, which was disposed of by Tribunal on 15.05.1998, directing the Respondent to pass final orders within three months, in which extension of time was sought by the Respondent and time was granted upto 23.05.1999 to pass final orders. .(ii) An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who enquired into the matter and submitted his report on 12.09.1996 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Respondent sought explanation from the Petitioner on 04.09.2000, for which, the Petitioner submitted his reply on 010. 2000. In the mean time, Petitioner has filed O.A.No.7598/2001, which was disposed of on 06.02.2002, directing the Respondent to pass final orders within a month. The Respondent issued Show Cause Notice on 24.05.2002 to the Petitioner proposing the punishment of a cut of Rs.50/-p.m. from the pension of the Petitioner for a period of six months. As the Petitioner did not agree for the said punishment, in consultation with Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Respondent passed final orders on 30.12.2003 confirming the said punishment. Alleging that the enormous delay in passing the final order has caused hardship to the Petitioner, Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the Charge Memo dated 23.02.1996 and Show Cause Notice dated 24.05.2002. 4. Mr. Alleging that the enormous delay in passing the final order has caused hardship to the Petitioner, Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition to quash the Charge Memo dated 23.02.1996 and Show Cause Notice dated 24.05.2002. 4. Mr. R.Karthikeyan, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that theft was due to improper maintenance of the entire store and theft was beyond his control. It was further submitted that based on the evidence and materials, when Enquiry Officer held that Charge No.1 was not proved and the Writ Petitioner ought to have been exonerated from other Charges. It was further argued that Petitioner was only in-charge of stocktaking and no dishonest intention could be attributed to the Writ Petitioner. 5. Mr. N.Senthilkumar, learned AGP submitted that withdrawal of criminal complaint was a serious misconduct and non-intimation of the same to the higher officials is yet another serious misconduct which would indicate deliberate dishonest intention on the part of the Petitioner. Placing reliance upon (2007) 7 SCC 236 [Bank of India and others v. T.Jogram], learned AGP further submitted that quantum of punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is very reasonable and the same cannot be interfered with. 6. As per the Charges framed against the Petitioner, due to improper maintenance of electrical stores, he was responsible for the theft of electrical materials for the value of Rs.48,150/- and that he had not dealt with the theft matter with the police by taking proper steps to recover the theft materials and that he had not accounted for the theft materials into the stock register of Electrical Division. 7. Charge No.1 is that due to Petitioners improper maintenance of stores, he was responsible for the theft of electrical materials worth Rs.48,150/- from the electrical stores on 19. 1993. Enquiry Officer held that improper maintenance of entire store cannot be attributed as a reason for the theft and held that Charge No.1 not proved. 8. Main contention of the Writ Petitioner is that as per G.O.(D) No.477 PWD dated 212. 2001, responsibility is with Electrical Engineer for providing adequate protection. On behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that Enquiry Officer having held that Charge No.1 not proved, Petitioner ought to have been exonerated from other Charges. 9. Charge No.2 is that Petitioner had withdrawn the complaint (made on 19. 1993) on the same day. 10. Charge No.3 is that Petitioner had withdrawn the complaint on 19. On behalf of the Petitioner, it was contended that Enquiry Officer having held that Charge No.1 not proved, Petitioner ought to have been exonerated from other Charges. 9. Charge No.2 is that Petitioner had withdrawn the complaint (made on 19. 1993) on the same day. 10. Charge No.3 is that Petitioner had withdrawn the complaint on 19. 1993 from the Police by stating that theft materials were only misplaced and not theft as complained. Writ Petitioner defended the Charges saying that withdrawal of police complaint was due to the advice and pressure from one R.Shanmugam, Asst. Executive Engineer. Referring to the evidence of the said Shanmugam, Enquiry Officer observed that the said Shanmugam had totally denied the statement of Writ Petitioner. Enquiry Officer further observed that whatever be the pressure, the Writ Petitioner ought not to have withdrawn the complaint. 11. It is also relevant to note that withdrawal of the complaint was not intimated to the Electrical Engineer. Withdrawal of criminal complaint coupled with the factum of non-intimation to the higher officials would clearly show the malafide intention on the part of the Petitioner. 12. Charge No.4 is that Petitioner had withdrawn the complaint on 19. 1993 by stating that materials were only misplaced and theft had not taken place and subsequently he resiled from the earlier statement and stating that theft had taken place on 19. 1993 and again requesting to lodge the complaint. 13. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Writ Petitioner had earlier withdrawn the complaint. Later he rectified the mistake by again lodging the complaint and therefore, no motive could be attributed. Based upon the evidence and materials, Enquiry Officer held that such a contradictory stand from a well experienced Store Keeper is not befitting of his position and the Enquiry Officer was right in observing that the Petitioner was negligent discharging his normal official duty. The findings of the Enquiry Officer is based on the evidence and materials on record. 14. Charge No.5 is that instead of taking follow up action to recover the stolen materials, Petitioner had withdrawn the complaint. Enquiry Officer observed that whatever be the situation and pressure, Petitioner being a Store Keeper should have proceeded with the complaint and held Petitioner responsible for the loss to the Government due to the above theft. 15. Charge No.6 is quite serious. Enquiry Officer observed that whatever be the situation and pressure, Petitioner being a Store Keeper should have proceeded with the complaint and held Petitioner responsible for the loss to the Government due to the above theft. 15. Charge No.6 is quite serious. As a Store Keeper, Petitioner was responsible to keep the stock register upto date with available physical stock. 6th Charge is that Petitioner had deducted theft stock at various Ledger folios of stock register 1993-94 and that he failed to get proper sanction for the said deduction of the said entries in the stock register. Writ Petitioner defended the Charge contending that he got verification signature from the Electrical Engineer in the stock register in 1993-94 and that it may be treated as approval for stock deduction entries along with physical verification. For deduction of electrical materials involved in the criminal complaint, Petitioner ought to have obtained proper sanction from the Executive Engineer for the said deducted entries in the stock register. 16. Charge No.7 is to the effect that Petitioner has not properly discharged his official duty and that he has committed dereliction of duty. Withdrawal of criminal complaint coupled with the finding of Charge No.6 i.e. deduction of electrical materials involved in the theft from the stock register clearly shows that all was not well with the Petitioner in maintaining the Stores. Based upon the evidence and materials, Enquiry Officer held that Charge Nos. 2 to 7 are proved against the Petitioner and that Petitioner was negligent in discharge of his duties. As pointed out by the Enquiry Officer, Petitioner seems to have taken contradictory stand in withdrawal of criminal complaint and again reviving the same. Finding of the Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence. 17. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there has been inordinate and unexplained delay in issuing the Charge Memo and conclusion of the Proceedings. This contention does not merit acceptance. Immediately, after framing of Charges, Writ Petitioner filed O.A.No.2108/1996 which was disposed only on 24. 1997 to proceed against the Petitioner under rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Charge Memo was issued on 111. 1997. Petitioner offered his explanation by representation dated 211. 1997. Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 30.7.1998. Government communicated the Enquiry Officers report to the Writ Petitioner on 212. 1997 to proceed against the Petitioner under rule 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules. Charge Memo was issued on 111. 1997. Petitioner offered his explanation by representation dated 211. 1997. Enquiry Officer has submitted his report on 30.7.1998. Government communicated the Enquiry Officers report to the Writ Petitioner on 212. 1998 calling for his further representation and Writ Petitioner submitted his further representation on 05.01.1999. After issuing show cause notice and after examining further representation to the show cause notice, Government issued final orders in G.O.(D) 101 PWD dated 03. 2002. As such there is no force in the contention of the Writ Petitioner that there was unexplained and inordinate delay in issuing the Charge Memo and conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding. 18. There was theft of electrical materials worth Rs.48,150/-. According to the Petitioner, he had sent number of representation to repair the Stores and no action was taken to maintain the Stores. Drawing Courts attention to PWD Circulars, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that it is incumbent upon the department to properly maintain the Stores and responsibility cannot be pinned upon the Writ Petitioner for the theft of electrical materials. 19. The above contention does not merit acceptance. The manner in which Writ Petitioner has withdrawn the complaint without intimating the higher officials and deduction of electrical materials without proper sanction from the higher officials would clearly prove dereliction of duty on the part of the Petitioner. Once the findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence are recorded, the High Court in Writ jurisdiction may not normally interfere with those factual findings. The adequacy or inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the High Court. 20. W.P.No.26735/2005: During the tenure as Divisional Accountant in the Chennai Division of the Construction Branch of the Industries and Commerce Department from 06.02.1986 to 212. 1989, Petitioner had miserably failed to take effective steps to clear the huge minus balance from the suspense head. Though there was no financial loss to the Government, the huge balance under suspense head was due to misclassification and his failure to post them in appropriate heads, then and there led to non-clearance of MAS accounts and thereby caused delay in preparation of completion report for the works. 121. Though there was no financial loss to the Government, the huge balance under suspense head was due to misclassification and his failure to post them in appropriate heads, then and there led to non-clearance of MAS accounts and thereby caused delay in preparation of completion report for the works. 121. As per Para-89 (a) of Tamil Nadu Public Works "A" Code, function of the Divisional Accountant are three fold i.e. (i) Accountant; (iii) Primary Auditor; and (iii) Financial Assistant. Based on the request of the Director of Industries and Commerce Department, Madras the Government in their letter dated 23. 1995 have observed that besides K.Pandiarajan and Ravindran, Executive Engineers, (1) M.Ramasubramanian, formerly Executive Engineer, (2) M.Dhanaraj, formerly Executive Engineer and (3) N.S.Krishnan, formerly Divisional Accountant of PWD among others were also found responsible for non-clearance of suspense accounts in the Stores account for Madras/Madurai Divisions of Construction Branch. Accordingly, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against them under Rule 17(b) of TNCS (D&A) Rules. 122. Totally three counts of Charges were framed against the Petitioner and Enquiry Officer has held that Charge No.1 is proved and Charge Nos.2 and 3 are not proved. But the Government had deviated the report of the Enquiry Officer and decided to hold Charge Nos. 1 and 3 as held proved and Charge No.2 as not proved. Government have issued final orders vide G.O. (D) No.640 PW (E2) Dept. dated 30.12.2003 imposing the punishment of cut in Pension of Rs.50/- per month for a period of six months. .23. With regard to first count of charge the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that total of 180 items pending during his tenure, Petitioner has cleared 152 items leaving only 28 items to be cleared on 112. 1989. According to Petitioner he has cleared more than 85% during his tenure and the remaining 80% was inevitable as such it relates to defunct divisions and the Enquiry Officer erred in saying that the first charge was proved. 124. During the period of delinquency while the Petitioner was working as Divisional Accountant, minus suspense account had increased from Rs.8.75 lakhs to Rs.18.34 lakhs for which explanation was called for and the representation submitted by the Petitioner was found not satisfactory. Based on the materials, it was held that Petitioner had not taken effective steps to clear the huge minus balance from the suspense head. Based on the materials, it was held that Petitioner had not taken effective steps to clear the huge minus balance from the suspense head. TNPSC has agreed with the provisional conclusion of the Government. The Commission has also suggested that the punishment proposed by the Government is not too harsh. Considering the Charges held proved against the Writ Petitioner, TNPSC confirmed the proposed punishment of cutting the pension of Rs.50/- per month for a period of six months. 125. Accordingly, Government have issued final orders vide G.O.(D) No.640 PW (E2) Department dated 30.12.2003 imposing the punishment of cut in pension of Rs.50 per month for a period of six months. Punishment of cut of Rs.50/-per month for six months from Petitioners Pension cannot be said to be harsh or excessive. 126. Main contention of Petitioner is that Government of Tamilnadu has no jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner as such he was transferred to the Industry and Commerce Department under the control of the Accountant General of Tamilnadu from 010. 1984 to 212. 1989 and as per the Government Orders, Government of Tamilnadu cannot initiate Disciplinary proceedings. In response the learned Additional Government Pleader submitted that though the Petitioner was working in Industry and Commerce Department under the control of Accountant General, it was only an interse arrangement and only the State Government/Government of Tamilnadu has jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner. Since the interse arrangement is only nature of deputation Government of Tamilnadu have jurisdiction to initiate disciplinary proceedings. 127. On behalf of the Petitioner it was submitted that the Petitioner has been victimised by initiating disciplinary proceedings. Facts and circumstances would indicate no such victimisation. It is to be noted that separate Charge was also framed against the Writ Petitioner for the alleged loss of Copper wire to the tune of Rs.79,740/- and the Government had taken lenient view in dropping the Charge in respect of the said loss. 128. In service matters, the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision making process and not the decision. Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court, in (2007) 2 MLJ 278 (SC), [Union of India and others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari], the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "15. Unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court, in (2007) 2 MLJ 278 (SC), [Union of India and others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari], the Supreme Court has held as follows:- "15. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrators 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 defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesburys (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. 16. To put differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations, it may in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a 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." 17. The above position was recently reiterated in Union of India and another v. K.G.Soni 2006 (6) Supreme 389 : 2006 III LLJ 802 (SC) following Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and others v. Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC 584 : (2005) 10 SCC 84 : 2005-I-LLJ-730 (SC)." 29. Exercising jurisdiction under Art. 226 of Constitution of India, High Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority, over the factual findings recorded during departmental proceedings. While exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court does not normally substitute its own conclusion, with regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental authorities. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental Appellate Authority, is either impermissible or such that if shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. 30. Even insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the departmental Appellate Authority, is either impermissible or such that if shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other punishment or penalty. 30. In the present case, having regard to the proved Charges, quantum of punishment imposed upon the Writ Petitioner on the Charges cannot be said to be excessive or harsh warranting interference. 31. In the result, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs. ? Respondents shall disburse DCRG and other terminal benefits payable to the Petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order. ? Respondents shall process the Pension paper within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.