Judgment : R. BANUMATHI, J. Challenging order of learned single Judge ordering reinstatement along with 50% back wages of salary, appellant School Management- St. Joseph College Higher Secondary School, Trichy has preferred this writ appeal. 2. Brief facts are that first respondent joined appellant School Management in 1992 as Vocational teacher in Commerce. For lapses noticed in the services of first respondent, following charges were framed against him: (i) Causing interference into routine administrative of the Headmaster on 1. 2001 and on 1. 2001; (ii) Ignoring orders of Headmaster despite the fact that he was advised by the Headmaster to obtain fitness certificate on 1. 2001. Similarly, on 1. 2001 he having barged into those classes taken by substitute teacher, without the permission of the Headmaster, having sat there continuously causing interruption to the Class; (iii) Abusing the Management in the presence of other teachers and class students, in the manner of creating a dent on the reputation of the Management; (iv) Creating loss of discipline, among the students and the teachers through his in disciplinary activities in a school known for its discipline for more than 150 years; (v) Conducting himself so as to defame his position as a teacher. 3. Along with first respondent, one teacher Arokiyaraj was also issued charge memo. First respondent did not submit any explanation but appellant School Management decided to conduct domestic enquiry and accordingly one Mr. D. Stanislaus, advocate, Tirchy was appointed as Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was conducted on various dates and first respondent was represented by an advocate. Eight witnesses were examined on behalf of appellant School Management and witnesses were also cross examined by the advocate who represented the first respondent. First respondent examinee himself as witness and he was also cross-examined by appellant School Management’s advocate. 4. Enquiry Officer clubbed certain charges and held that charges were proved. Report of Enquiry Officer was sent to first respondent who submitted his explanation on the findings. Second show cause notice was also issued on 210. 2001 and in response to second show cause notice, first respondent had given his explanation on 11. 2001. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 12. 2001 Service of first respondent was terminated which was challenged in W.P.No.5964 of 2002 on the ground that proceedings is vitiated by bias and no opportunity was given to first respondent to challenge the correctness of the report of Enquiry Officer. 5. 2001. Thereafter, by proceedings dated 12. 2001 Service of first respondent was terminated which was challenged in W.P.No.5964 of 2002 on the ground that proceedings is vitiated by bias and no opportunity was given to first respondent to challenge the correctness of the report of Enquiry Officer. 5. Learned Single Judge held that minority school can maintain writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Learned Single Judge further held that appellant School Management was not justified in refusing to permit the first respondent to join and the entire issues precipitated by Management. Learned Single Judge held that first respondent has not committed any serious misconduct and entire incident was due to provocation from Management. Holding that termination was unjustified, learned Single Judges set aside the order of termination and ordered reinstatement with 50% back wages. 6. Challenging the order of reinstatement, Mr. Vijay Narayan, learned Senior counsel for the appellant School Management submitted that charges framed were fairly serious and termination order was justified. Placing reliance upon State Bank of India And Others V. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212 : (2007) 7 MLJ 848: 2006-III-LLJ-563, it was contended that in departmental enquiry scope of interference is very limited and reappreciation of evidence by the High Court is impermissible. Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that there is no discussion as to how Enquiry Officer had gone wrong and as to how decision making was in violation of rules. It was further argued that when serious misconduct is levelled against first respondent and when first respondent has forfeited the confidence, there cannot be an order of reinstatement. 7. On behalf of first respondent, Mr. V. Prakash, learned Senior counsel submitted that incident on 1. 2001 is a concocted one and findings of Enquiry Officer are perverse. It was further argued that burden of disproving the incident on 1. 2001 has been placed upon the delinquent which is erroneous. 8. First respondent applied for medical leave on 11. 2000 to 20.11.2000 and enclosed a medical certificate. First respondent applied for extension of leave for one month from 211. 2000 and he reported for duty on 212. 2000. According to first respondent, he was not allowed to join duty and was directed to appear before Medical Board. 8. First respondent applied for medical leave on 11. 2000 to 20.11.2000 and enclosed a medical certificate. First respondent applied for extension of leave for one month from 211. 2000 and he reported for duty on 212. 2000. According to first respondent, he was not allowed to join duty and was directed to appear before Medical Board. According to first respondent, when first respondent appeared, he was informed that since his medical leave was already over, it is not possible for them to entertain medical examination. By letter dated 30.11.2000, appellant School Management directed first respondent to appear before Medical Board. First respondent came to the School on 1. 2001 to report for duty and according to first respondent, appellant School Management refused to permit him. On 1. 2001, first respondent came to School and he entered class XII-E where substitute teacher Lazar was taking class. First respondent asked substitute teacher Lazar to come out. Substitute teacher Lazar continued with taking class, the 1st respondent sat inside the class room murmuring and, thereby hampered conducting of classes. 9. Denying allegation, learned senior counsel for first respondent mainly contended that communication from Medical Board dated 1. 2001 was sent to the School and inspite of receipt of communication from Medical Board, first respondent was not permitted to join the School and unjustifiably his request to join was tuned down. 10. Learned senior counsel for appellant School Management submitted that communication from Medical Board was received by the School Management only on 1. 2001 and when School Management received communication on 1. 2001, it could not have been possible for Management to permit first respondent to join duty on 1. 2001 itself. It was further submitted that during oral enquiry students of XII-E class has clearly spoken about the misconduct of first respondent entering the class and asking substitute teacher to go out and sitting in the Chair murmuring and hampering conducting of classes. .11. Substitute teacher Lazar had given statement (Management Exhibit No.7) to School Management that on 1. 2001, first respondent entered XIIth standard ‘E’ Section asking him to go out and sat down in the Chair and abusing the Headmaster and interrupting conducting of class. .11. Substitute teacher Lazar had given statement (Management Exhibit No.7) to School Management that on 1. 2001, first respondent entered XIIth standard ‘E’ Section asking him to go out and sat down in the Chair and abusing the Headmaster and interrupting conducting of class. Learned senior counsel for first respondent mainly argued that even though said substitute teacher Lazar had given statement, he was not examined before Enquiry Officer and non - examination of substitute teacher Lazar would vitally affect enquiry proceedings. It was further argued that without examining substitute teacher Lazar, appellant School Management cannot be said to have substantiated the charges. In his report, Enquiry Officer has pointed out that substitute teacher Lazar had gone into North India in connection with some other work and consequently, he could not be produced for enquiry. Enquiry Officer pointed out that statement (Management Exhibit No.7) of substitute teacher Lazar strengthens evidence given by the Management witnesses 7 and 8 (Arokiasamy and Paul Arulsamy). Accepting statement of substitute teacher Lazar, Enquiry Officer took the view that there was no necessity for substitute teacher Lazar to give a false statement making allegations against delinquent teachers, Findings of Enquiry Officer cannot be said to be perverse. 12. During enquiry proceedings, XII-E students viz., Paul Arulsamy, Santhiyagu and Joseph were examined as Management witnesses. In their earlier statement of Paul Arulsamy and Santhiyagu, it has been stated as “Class XI-E” whereas another student Joseph has stated that first respondent entered “Class XII-E”. Pointing out contradictions, learned senior counsel for first respondent contended that discrepancy as to class in which first respondent entered would clearly show that incident on 1. 2001 is a concocted one. It was further submitted that contradiction whether the class allegedly first respondent entered would strike at root of the matter indicating that incident on 1. 2001 is concocted one. We have directed the School Management to produce the file and we have carefully gone through the File. We think that mention of class XI-E is an inadvertent mistake. 13. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, High Court would not interfere with finding of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority during departmental enquiry. Court cannot sit in appeal as Appellate authority. Judicial review is not against the decision; but against decision making-process. We think that mention of class XI-E is an inadvertent mistake. 13. Exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, High Court would not interfere with finding of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority during departmental enquiry. Court cannot sit in appeal as Appellate authority. Judicial review is not against the decision; but against decision making-process. It is fairly well settled that Court cannot set aside the punishment unless them has been substantial non-compliance of rules or in violation of rules of natural justice. 14. It is trite that the Tribunal or the High Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution are not hearing an appeal against the decision of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon the delinquent employee. The jurisdiction exercised by the Tribunal or the High Court is a limited one and while exercising the power of judicial review, they cannot set aside the punishment altogether or impose some other penalty unless they find that there has been a substantial non-compliance of the rules of procedure or a gross violation of rules of natural justice which has caused prejudice to the employee and has resulted in miscarriage of justice or the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravamen of the employees has been settled by a catena of decision of Supreme Court. .15. In B.C. Chaturvedi V. Union of India AIR 1996 SC 484 : (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996-I-LLJ-1231, the Supreme Court observed as under at P.1237 of LLJ: .“18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-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 is 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.” 16. 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.” 16. In Damon Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another V. Munna Lal Jain AIR 2005 SC 584 : (2005) 10 SCC 84 : 2005-I-LLJ-730, the Supreme Court observed 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 defiance or logic or moral standards. 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. 117. We have carefully gone through the File and materials on record. During disciplinary proceedings, reasonable opportunity was given to first respondent. During disciplinary proceedings, first respondent was represented by an advocate and he elaborately cross-examined Management witness. Enquiry Officer’s report was sent to first respondent and reasonable opportunity was afforded to first respondent to give his explanation. Applying the well settled position, we do not find any substantial non-compliance or gross violation of rules of natural justice or rules of procedure. 118. Punishment of termination from service was set aside by learned single Judge on the ground that the incident was precipitated by Management. First respondent was working as a teacher. His proved misconduct on 1. 2001 and 1. 2001 was a serious misconduct of indiscipline. Scope of interference with punishment awarded by disciplinary authority is very limited. Chance of punishment must be left to the authorities. Unless punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, Court cannot interfere. First respondent had not shown any mitigating circumstance to interfere with the order of termination. 19. 2001 and 1. 2001 was a serious misconduct of indiscipline. Scope of interference with punishment awarded by disciplinary authority is very limited. Chance of punishment must be left to the authorities. Unless punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, Court cannot interfere. First respondent had not shown any mitigating circumstance to interfere with the order of termination. 19. The role of a Teacher in the Educational Institution and how a Teacher should behave are explained by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision in Avinash Nagar v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (1997) 2 SCC 534 : 1997-II-LLJ-640: JT (1996) 10 SC 461 in paragraph 11 as under at P.645 of LLJ: .“11…….The Quality, competence and character of the teacher are, therefore, most significant to mould the calibre, character and capacity of the students for successful working of democratic institutions and to sustain them in their late years of life as a responsible citizen in different responsibilities. Without a dedicated and disciplined teacher, even the best education system is bound to fail…..” 120. In L.K. Verma V. HMLT Ltd. And Another AIR 2006 SC 975 : (2006) 2 SCC 269 : (2006) 1 Supreme 575 : 2006-I-LLJ-1074, the Honourable Supreme Court disapproved the conduct of a Teacher and held how the institution should act if an indiscipline is noticed, in paragraph 24 which reads thus at P.1079 of LLJ: “24. These question recently came up for consideration in Hombe Gowda Edn. Trust v. state of Karnataka. Upon considering a large number of cases, this Court held: (SCC pp.440-41,paras 2930) “28. Indiscipline in an educational institution should not be tolerated. Only because the Principal of the institution had not been proceeded against, the same by itself cannot be a ground for not exercising the discretionary Jurisdiction by us. It may or may not be that the management was selectively vindictive but no management can ignore a serious lapse on the part of a teacher whose conduct should be an example to the pupils. 29. This Court has come a long way from its earlier viewpoints. The recent trends in the decisions of this Court seek to strike a balance between the earlier approach of the industrial relation wherein only the interest of the workmen was sought to be protected with the avowed object of fast industrial growth of country. 29. This Court has come a long way from its earlier viewpoints. The recent trends in the decisions of this Court seek to strike a balance between the earlier approach of the industrial relation wherein only the interest of the workmen was sought to be protected with the avowed object of fast industrial growth of country. In several decisions of this Court it has been noticed how discipline at the workplace/industrial under takings received a setback. In view of the change in economic policy of the country, it may not now be proper to allow the employees to break the discipline with impunity. Our country is governed by rule of law. All action, therefore, must be taken in accordance with law. Law declared by this Court in terms of Article 141 of the Constitution, as noticed in the decisions noticed supra, categorically demonstrate that the Tribunal would not normally interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the employers unless an appropriate case is made out therefore. The Tribunal being inferior to this Court was bound to follow the decision of this Court which are applicable to the facts of the present case in question. The Tribunal can neither ignore the ratio laid down by this court nor refuse to follow the same (See also state of Rajasthan v. Mohd. Ayub Naz)” 21. In the result, the order of learned single Judge in W.P. No. 5964 of 2002 dated 11. 2009 is set aside and the writ appeal is allowed. Consequently, M.P. No.1 of 2009 is closed. No Cost.