ORDER : 1. The prayer sought for herein is for a writ of certiorarified mandamus, to call for the records connected in G.O.3(D) No. 66, dated 09.08.2000 of the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. 2. The present petitioner filed Original Application before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in Dairy No. 8240 of 2004, which, at the condone delay stage, stood transferred to this Court and after orders of this Court, the O.A. transferred was directed to be numbered as writ petition in W.P. No. 18431 of 2008. That is how this writ petition has come before this Court with the prayer to call for the records connected in G.O.3(D) No. 66, dated 09.08.2000 of the second respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits. 3. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department (PWD) on 30.10.1982 and after working various stations, he was transferred and posted to Section-II, Usilampatti, Madurai District. Till such time, he already rendered 11 years service in the Department with unblemished record. 4. When he was working as Assistant Engineer, PWD, Usilampatti Division No. II, the people of Sadachipatti village, seems to have given a representation stating that during rainy season due to heavy flood flow in the supply Odai (canal) leading to Sadachipatti tank developed several breaches, therefore, they wanted to make some corrective measures, i.e. repair works in that Odai, which is situated 5 kms North of Usilampatti - Madurai Road. 5. In this regard, it is the case of the petitioner that, estimate was prepared as instructed by the higher officials and accordingly, work was given to the contractor, the contractor had undertaken the work and he has completed the work immediately in view of the ensuing rainy season during that year. 6. However, subsequently, it seems that, due to some petitions, which, according to the petitioner, are anonymous petitions received by the higher-ups of the Public Works Department, an inspection was ordered. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, PWD, one Chinnappan was asked to inspect the work place at the Odai and to give a report as to whether the petitions received against the petitioner in this regard that the works were not undertaken in the Odai were true or not. Accordingly, the Executive Engineer, PWD, one Chinnappan was asked to inspect the work place at the Odai and to give a report as to whether the petitions received against the petitioner in this regard that the works were not undertaken in the Odai were true or not. Accordingly, that Executive Engineer, Chinnappan on 26.05.1993 inspected the Odai concerned along with one R. Venkatasubbu, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD and one K. Muniandi, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, who is one of the four delinquents against whom subsequently, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated. 7. Accordingly, a report, dated 26.05.1993 was prepared by M. Chinnappan, which was signed by both Venkatasubbu and Muniandi, Assistant Executive Engineers, PWD and the same was submitted to the Chief Engineer, PWD on 28.05.1995. According to the said Inspection Report, there was no work undertaken in the Odai concerned, without having undertaken the repair work estimate was prepared, bills and vouchers were prepared and accordingly, amount has been paid. Therefore, based on such alleged action on the part of the delinquents, the department decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against four members, they are (1) Thirumalai Kumarasamy, Executive Engineer, PWD, (2) K. Muniandi, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, (3) R. Ramasubramaniam, Assistant Engineer, PWD, the petitioner herein and (4) M.P. Mookiah, Junior Engineer, PWD. 8. In this context, a charge memo was issued against the petitioner, who is one of the four delinquent officers, on 12.10.1995, where, three charges were framed and in respect of the other two, namely Thirumalai Kumarasamy and K. Muniandi, similar charges were framed and there was a joint enquiry conducted in respect of all the three. However, in respect of M.P. Mookiah is concerned, though charge were framed, subsequently, it seems that, the charges framed against Mookiah, i.e. one of the four delinquents were dropped. 9. Pursuant to the enquiry conducted, where the petitioner participated, the Enquiry Officer found that, all the three charges framed against the petitioner were proved and accordingly, based on the Enquiry Officer's finding, the Government, who is the disciplinary authority, has decided to inflict the maximum penalty of removal of service against the petitioner by issuing G.O.(3D).No. 66, Public Works (E1) Department, dated 09.08.2000. Though against the impugned G.O. dated 09.08.2000, Review was filed before the Government, before orders were passed in the review petition, the petitioner had chosen to approach the Tribunal by filing O.A. and accordingly, it was transferred to this Court and that is how the present writ petition came up for hearing before this Court. 10. Heard Mr. G. Elanchezhiyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who would submit that, since it was the emergent work of repair to be undertaken in the Odai concerned before the onset of monsoon of that year, as per the direction issued by the Executive Engineer who was also the delinquent, estimates were prepared and work was accordingly entrusted to the contractor, who infact had undertaken the work. 11. Since it is not a fresh construction of any canal and it is only a repair work, that too intermittently or sporadically, taking into account the entire stretch of Odai, it could not be found that in one particular place there could be a new construction, that could be surfaced at the time of inspection. 12. He would also submit that, only because of certain anonymous representation or complaint by any disgruntled person for the reasons best known to them, the alleged inspection was taken place, where the inspecting officer, Chinnappan, Executive Engineer, PWD did not take the delinquent or the Executive Engineer, Thirumalai Kumarasamy, who was also a delinquent along with him at the time of inspection. Though one of the delinquent, K. Muniandi, had accompanied the Inspecting officer, it is the case of that Muniandi also that, what has been stated in the report subsequently prepared and filed by the Inspecting Officer was incorrect and in this context, the said Muniandi also had given his statement clearly before the Enquiry Officer. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would also submit that, during the enquiry, the Inspecting Officer, Chinnappan has never been examined in front of the delinquents, especially the petitioner. Assuming that, some statement had been obtained from the Inspecting Officer, a chance of cross-examining the said Inspecting Officer should have been given to each of the delinquents including the petitioner. However, that chance was not specifically given to this petitioner to cross-examine the said Inspecting Officer, Chinnappan who was the crucial witness from the point of view of the respondent side. 14. However, that chance was not specifically given to this petitioner to cross-examine the said Inspecting Officer, Chinnappan who was the crucial witness from the point of view of the respondent side. 14. Since the entire charge was framed only on the basis or foundation of the alleged inspection report, dated 26.05.1993 prepared by the Executive Engineer, Chinnappan, i.e. the Inspecting Officer, certainly the author of the said report should have been presented before the Enquiry Officer and he should have been asked to record his statement only in front of the delinquents including the petitioner, but that kind of procedure was not adopted by the respondent. 15. He would also submit that, assuming that a statement has been given or said to have been given by the said Inspecting Officer, the copy of the statement should have been furnished to the petitioner during the time of enquiry itself and based on which, the Inspecting Officer should have been made available before the Enquiry Officer for the purpose of cross-examining him by all delinquents including the petitioner, but that chance was not given. Therefore it is a flaw in the very enquiry itself and therefore, the very foundation of the departmental case has been shattered by virtue of the failure to examine the Inspecting Officer in front of the delinquents and failure on the part of the Enquiry Officer to permit the delinquents including the petitioner to cross-examine such Inspecting Officer. 16. Therefore, pointing out all these defects in the disciplinary proceedings, very particularly in the enquiry conducted, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would vehemently content that, the petitioner had been made as a scape-goat for the reasons best known to the department and the way in which the disciplinary proceedings initiated and concluded is not inconsonance with the parameters and the procedure to be adopted while conducting departmental proceedings and therefore, for all these reasons, the learned counsel would content that, the punishment awarded against the petitioner, which is the culmination of the disciplinary proceeding, is liable to be interfered with. 17. Per contra, Mr. 17. Per contra, Mr. K. Magesh, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents would submit that, no doubt the inspection was ordered to be conducted, of course on the basis of the complaints received from various quarters, stating that, the repair work in the Odai concerned was not at all undertaken and without having undertaken the repair works since the estimate was prepared, bills were submitted and based on which amount has been released and paid to the contractor only for the pecuniary advantage of the delinquents concerned, the department thought it as a serious issue. Therefore in order to unearth the actual factors, the department wanted to proceed further in this matter, therefore, inspection was ordered to be conducted. Accordingly, Mr. Chinnappan, Executive Engineer, PWD was appointed as Inspecting Officer and he had undertaken his inspection on 26.05.1993. 18. The learned Special Government Pleader would also submit that, on the date of inspection, neither Thirumalai Kumarasamy, Executive Engineer, nor the petitioner were available, therefore the Inspecting Officer had taken another delinquent one Muniandi, Assistant Executive Engineer along with him and another Assistant Executive Engineer, one Venkatasubbu for conducting the inspection. 19. After having conducted the inspection, the Inspecting Officer prepared a report on the same day and submitted before the Superintending Engineer concerned, who on verifying the report, directed the Inspecting Officer to produce the same before the Chief Engineer. Accordingly, on the next day, the report was submitted before the Chief Engineer, who received the same on 28.05.1993 and pursuant to which alone, Disciplinary Proceedings were initiated against the delinquents including the petitioner by framing the definite charges. 20. In this context, the learned Special Government Pleader, in order to meet out the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the enquiry was not properly conducted and the Inspecting Officer, Chinnappan was not enquired and assuming that behind their back if any statement was received from Chinnappan, no chance of cross-examining him was given to the delinquents including the petitioner, has produced the relevant records before this Court. 21. 21. By relying upon the statement given by the Inspecting Officer as well as the cross-examination undertaken against him by one of the delinquents, i.e. Muniandi, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that, it is not the case as projected by the petitioner that, the Inspecting Officer was not examined, in fact he was examined and he had given his statement and pursuant to which, the chance of cross-examining him was also given to the delinquents, which chance was utilized by one of the delinquent, namely Muniandi. However the said chance of cross-examining even though was offered to the petitioner, he having admitted the same, however has not utilized that chance of cross-examination and this is evidenced from the very statement, the petitioner given before the Enquiry Officer which is also part and parcel of the record. 22. Therefore, relying upon the same, the learned Special Government Pleader would contend that, none of the allegations made on behalf of the petitioner and none of the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner by supporting the said ground raised on behalf of the petitioner would sustain, as the department has conducted the Disciplinary Proceeding in a fair manner by giving all reasonable opportunity to the delinquents in the manner known to law. Therefore, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that, it is one of the case, where there has been definite charges, which have been proved on a full fledged enquiry, therefore for such a proven charge, which was considered to be serious in nature, the disciplinary authority has decided to inflict the maximum penalty of removal of service, therefore such a punishment does not require any interference from this Court, he contended. 23. I have considered the said rival submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have perused the materials placed before this Court. 24. The first ground raised by the petitioner side is that, as per the estimate prepared, the work order was given or contract was given to the contractor, the repair works in the Odai concerned had been undertaken and this has not been properly appreciated by the Inspecting Officer who had inspected on a particular day behind the back of the petitioner and one another delinquent. 25. 25. In respect of the said contention raised by the petitioner, the report submitted by the Inspecting Officer as well as the statement before the Enquiry Officer have been perused by this Court. The Report discloses the following: “The following two works were sanctioned by the Executive Engineer, Madurai Division during 92-93. 1. Special repairs to flood bank in left bank to feed Sadachipatti Tank supply Odai in Sadachipatti village or Usilampatti Taluk Reach L.S. OM to 250 M-Estimate Rs. 95,000/- D.E. No. 810 (I)/92-93. 2. Special Repairs to flood bank in left bank to feed Sadachipatti tank supply Odai in Sadachipatti village of Usilampatti taluk Reach L.S. 1250M to 1500 M-Est. Rs. 94,000/- D.R. No. 810 (I)/92-93. ..... The above two works were awarded to Thiru. S.M. Pandian, Contractor, Rajakkur based on tender. Agreements were executed in the month of 3/93. The name of work, month and date of sanction and Agreement No. are detailed in the enclosed statement. First and final bills for both the works were prepared on 16.3.93 and submitted to Division. Payment for the work allotted under Agt. No. 1115 D1/92-93 was made in 3/93 for Rs. 96,494/- (vide C.N. Vr. No. 147M/3-93) payment for the other work allotted under Agreement No. 4416 D1/92-93 was made on 12.5.93 for Rs. 94,614/-. Based on the instructions of the Chief Engineer (Irrigation) Madras-5, I inspected the Sadachipatti tank and its supply Odai today (26.05.93) along with Thiru. K. Muniandi, Assistant Executive Engineer in-charge of the tank and Thiru. R. Venkatasubbu, Assistant Executive Engineer, Exhibition Sub-Division, Madras. On verification of the tank and Odai at site, it is found that none of the two works has been executed but payments have been made. The Assistant Executive Engineer who is in-chage of the tank has admitted that payments were made without executing the works based on the instructions of the Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Madurai Division.” 26. Only pursuant to this inspection report, where, not only the Inspecting Officer, Chinnappan and another officer who accompanied him, one Venkatasubbu, Assistant Executive Engineer signed but the said K. Muniandi, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, who is one of the delinquents had also signed. Only based on this report, charges were framed against the delinquents including the petitioner. 27. Only pursuant to this inspection report, where, not only the Inspecting Officer, Chinnappan and another officer who accompanied him, one Venkatasubbu, Assistant Executive Engineer signed but the said K. Muniandi, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD, who is one of the delinquents had also signed. Only based on this report, charges were framed against the delinquents including the petitioner. 27. During the enquiry, the Inspecting Officer, Chinnappan was in fact, examined by the Enquiry Officer and in this context, the learned Special Government Pleader had produced the relevant record, which discloses that, out of the 9 witnesses who were examined by the Enquiry Officer, the Inspecting Officer, Chinnappan was also examined who gave his statement on 18.11.1996, where he has reiterated and explained what has been stated by him in the Inspection Report. 28. In order to appreciate the relevant statement given by the Inspecting Officer, to support the prima-facie case on behalf of the department, the following of the statement is extracted hereunder: Others Language 29. Immediately after recording the said statement of Chinnappan, Inspecting Officer, the said K. Muniandi, one of the delinquent, who infact had accompanied the Inspecting Officer during inspection, had cross-examined the Inspecting Officer which runs about 4 to 5 pages, where 10 questions were asked by the said Muniandi, which was answered by the Inspecting Officer. This has been recorded by the Enquiry Officer on 18.11.1996. 30. It is further crucial to be noted that, the petitioner has given a statement on 19.11.1996 before the Enquiry Officer, which reads thus: Others Language 31. If we look at the said statement given by the Inspecting Officer as well as the question and answer recorded during the cross-examination of the Inspecting Officer by the said Muniandi, it has become clear that, the Inspecting Officer Chinnappan was examined by the Enquiry Officer and a chance of cross-examination also was given to the delinquents which chance was utilized only by one of the delinquent K. Munianadi, who asked several questions to the said Inspecting Officer and the same were answered by him and these aspects have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer. 32. 32. That apart, that kind of chance of cross-examination was also offered to the petitioner, however for the best reasons known to him, he had not chosen to cross-examine the said Inspecting Officer and this is evidenced from the statement he has given on 19.11.1996, which, in clear terms, has stated that, both on 18th as well as 19th November 1996, when the enquiry was conducted, enough chance of cross-examining the witnesses, who were examined before the Enquiry Officer, was given to him. If no chance was given to him as claimed by the petitioner, he would not have given the statement before the Enquiry Officer. 33. Moreover, it is not the case of the petitioner that, the said statement had not been given by him. Further, this is the old original records, where the proceedings of the enquiry had been recorded chronologically by the Enquiry Officer and that has now been produced before this Court for perusal. Therefore, this Court has no hesitation to hold that, absolutely there is no reason to doubt the said documents, where, the aforesaid proceedings were recorded by the Enquiry Officer, based on which only, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that the charges framed against the petitioner and the other delinquents, have been proved. 34. Therefore, this Court has come to the conclusion that, the charges framed against the petitioner definitely had been proved. Therefore, absolutely there is no scope for any interference by this Court in respect of that aspect. 35. Now let us come to the punishment area, where, the disciplinary authority through the impugned order, having considered the proven charge against the petitioner, has decided to inflict the maximum punishment of removal of service. 36. In this context, the reason stated by the disciplinary authority for inflicting such a maximum penalty is that, the proven charge against the petitioner are very serious in nature, as bills were prepared and amount had been paid to the contractor as if the work had been undertaken, without even having undertaken the work actually and this has been factually found out not only by the Inspection but also based on the enquiry conducted in the manner known to law. Therefore, concurring with the finding given by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority has decided to give the maximum punishment. 37. Therefore, concurring with the finding given by the Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority has decided to give the maximum punishment. 37. But at the same time, some peculiarity attached with this case also to be taken judicial notice, where, out of the four delinquents, the first delinquent, one Thirumalai Kumarasamy, Executive Engineer, PWD, though had been inflicted with the maximum punishment of removal of service, subsequently the said order of punishment inflicted against him was set aside by this Court in W.P. No. 5947 of 2007, dated 16.03.2012. Though the learned Judge in the said order has come to the conclusion to set aside the punishment, the reason for such decision is purely technical not on the basis of the merits of the case. To appreciate the same, relevant portion of the Judgment of the learned Judge is extracted hereunder: “25. The finding recorded by the enquiry officer is based on appreciation of evidence. 26. However, finding of the enquiry officer, holding petitioner along is guilty, is totally arbitrary. The enquiry officer has blindly accepted the statement of the co-accused, that they had done so on the instructions of petitioner. This could not be the ground to exonerate others, by making petitioner as scapegoat. The co-accused of petitioner were not illiterate, and were holding the rank of Assistant Engineer and Assistant Executive Engineer, who recommended the payment in writing and falsified the record. It cannot be accepted that they could fabricate the record only on the asking of petitioner, that the enquiry finding, therefore, suffers from vice of discrimination, thus, is hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 27. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that the whole proceedings are vitiated, as no enquiry under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules could be held against petitioner, as on the date of his superannuation, no charge memo was pending against him. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the Fundamental Rule 56, which was in force on the date of superannuation, which reads as under: “56. (a) The date of compulsory retirement of Government servant, whether he holds a substantive or officiating post, is the date on which he attains the age of Fifty-eight years. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the Fundamental Rule 56, which was in force on the date of superannuation, which reads as under: “56. (a) The date of compulsory retirement of Government servant, whether he holds a substantive or officiating post, is the date on which he attains the age of Fifty-eight years. He shall not be retained in service after that age except with the sanction of the Government on public grounds, which must be recorded in writing, but he shall not be retained after the age of sixty years except in very special circumstances: Provided that this clause shall not apply to Government servants who are treated as in superior service for the purpose of these rules but as in basic service for the purpose of pension such Government servants as well as all basic Government servants shall retire on attaining the age of sixty years. (c) A Government servant under suspension on a charge of misconduct should not be required or permitted to retire on his reaching the date of compulsory retirement but should be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge is conducted and a final order passed thereon by the competent authority.” 28. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was that the power under Fundamental Rule 56(c) could only be exercised, if there was charge of misconduct pending and not on anticipated charge sheet. Admittedly, on the date of retirement of petitioner, no charge memo was pending against petitioner and the order of suspension was passed on the last date of superannuation. 29. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that it was not open to the respondents to hold departmental enquiry under Section 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as there was no charge pending on the date of superannuation. 30. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was opposed by learned counsel for the State, by placing reliance on the amended Fundamental Rule 56(1), which reads under: “G.O.Ms. No. 365, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 4th October 1996 - with effect from 1st January 1993. 30. This contention of learned counsel for the petitioner was opposed by learned counsel for the State, by placing reliance on the amended Fundamental Rule 56(1), which reads under: “G.O.Ms. No. 365, Personnel and Administrative Reforms (FR-IV) Department, dated 4th October 1996 - with effect from 1st January 1993. Explanation I - When a Government servant is required to retire, revert or cease to be on leave on attaining a specific age, the day on which he attains that age is reckoned as a non-working day and the Government servant shall retire, revert or cease to be on leave, with effect on and from that day. Explanation II - The grant under rule 86 or corresponding other rules of leave extending beyond the date on which a Government servant must retire or beyond the date upto which a Government servant has been permitted to remain in service shall not be treated as sanctioning an extension of service for the purpose of Pensionary or Contributory Provident Fund benefits or retention of lien. The Government servant shall, for purpose of pensionary benefits, be deemed to have retired from service on the date of retirement or on the expiry of the extension of service, if any and shall become eligible to all pensionary benefits from the date of retirement or from the day following the date of termination of extension of service, as the case may be. (b) Omitted. (c) Notwithstanding anything contained in clause (a), a Government servant who is under suspension: (i) on a charge of misconduct. (ii) against whom an enquiry into grave charges of criminal misconduct or allegations of criminal misconduct, is pending. (iii) against whom an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated or is pending. (iv) against whom a complaint of criminal offence is under investigation or trial. (ii) against whom an enquiry into grave charges of criminal misconduct or allegations of criminal misconduct, is pending. (iii) against whom an enquiry into grave charges is contemplated or is pending. (iv) against whom a complaint of criminal offence is under investigation or trial. Shall not be permitted by the appointing authority to retire on his reaching the date of retirement, but shall be retained in service until the enquiry into the charge of misconduct or criminal misconduct or the enquiry into allegations of criminal misconduct or the enquiry into contemplated charges or disciplinary proceeding taken under rule 17(c) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules or rule 3(c) of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, as the case may be, in respect of item (iv) above is concluded and a final order passed thereon by the competent authority or by any higher authority. Explanation - For the purpose of this clause, the expression ‘criminal misconduct’ shall have the same meaning as in Section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Central Act 49 of 1988).” 31. The contention of learned counsel for the State was that though this Rule was framed on 04.10.1996, but it was given retrospective effect with effect from 1st January, 1993. 32. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in view of fact that there was no charge memo issued to the petitioner till the date of his superannuation and that the order of suspension was passed on the last date of superannuation. The proceedings against him could only be initiated under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which only gives power to the State Government to withhold or withdraw pension. 33. There is force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled law that the rules cannot be applied retrospectively to take away the vested right of an employee. The petitioner, having acquired the right to retire, on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 1994, the said right could not be taken away by amending rules retrospectively. It is well settled law that rules apply prospectively and cannot apply retrospectively, except procedural rules. The amended rule on which reliance was placed by the State could not be applied to the petitioner, as it takes away substantive right of the petitioner to retire. 34. It is well settled law that rules apply prospectively and cannot apply retrospectively, except procedural rules. The amended rule on which reliance was placed by the State could not be applied to the petitioner, as it takes away substantive right of the petitioner to retire. 34. Once amended rule is not applicable, then it can safely be said that it was not open to the State Government to retain the petitioner in service after date of superannuation, on basis of contemplated enquiry, therefore, petitioner would be deemed to have retired from service. 35. The remedy with the respondents is to move under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which gives power to the State Government to proceed against retiree under the Pension Rules. 36. For the reasons stated herein above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. Writ in the nature of Certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order of punishment as also order of suspension and charge memo. 37. However, this judgment shall not bar the respondents to proceed under Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, against petitioner, if so permissible in law. No costs.” 38. This Judgment though has been heavily relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I am of the view that, the said Judgment cannot advance the case of the petitioner to extend the same treatment to the petitioner also on merits of the disciplinary proceedings conducted in this regard against the petitioner. 39. Moreover, the said technicality as projected in the case of the said delinquent Thirumalai Kumarasamy need not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. 40. Insofar as the other delinquent, namely K. Muniandi, Assistant Executive Engineer, PWD is concerned, though he had accompanied the Inspecting Officer and he had signed in the Inspection Report, dated 28.05.1995, he denied all those things during the enquiry, however after completing the enquiry, but before inflicting the punishment against the said Muniandi also, he unfortunately died, therefore it become abated. Insofar as the fourth delinquent, one Mookiah, Junior Engineer, PWD is concerned, though separate charges were framed against him, however, it is submitted before this Court by Mr. K. Magesh, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent that, subsequently the charges framed against the said Mookiah were dropped. 41. Insofar as the fourth delinquent, one Mookiah, Junior Engineer, PWD is concerned, though separate charges were framed against him, however, it is submitted before this Court by Mr. K. Magesh, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent that, subsequently the charges framed against the said Mookiah were dropped. 41. Therefore the resultant situation is that, out of the four delinquents, the petitioner alone is now suffered with the maximum penalty of removal of service. At the time of the punishment awarded against the petitioner in the year 2000, he was having the service of nearly about 15 years, that service have gone and by virtue of the maximum punishment of removal of service, though he has rendered some considerable years of service to the department, he has now been placed in a pitiable condition, where he has been shown the road to go home with empty hands. 42. Normally Law Courts would not interfere with the ultimate decision taken by the disciplinary authority on proven charges. In order to prove the charges in departmental proceedings, it is a well settled proposition that, by mere preponderance of probability, the charges framed in departmental proceedings can be said to be proved, for which, the decree of proof beyond reasonable doubt, as we adopt in criminal jurisprudence, need not be invoked. 43. But at the same time, if an employee for any proven charge is punished departmentally, by virtue of that, if he is removed from service, to my view, it is nothing but a civil death of a person's career. The employee of a Government, if he has rendered some considerable years of service definitely he would have settled in his personal life with family, therefore, ultimately by virtue of the punishment of removal of service, if he has been sent back to home, the future of the employee, not only him or her, but the family of such employee will be in complete doldrums. 44. This kind of situation should always be visualised by law Court, by applying judicial mind with a piece of law of equity. Therefore, these kind of situation if confronted by law courts, normally the theory of proportionality would be invoked. 45. 44. This kind of situation should always be visualised by law Court, by applying judicial mind with a piece of law of equity. Therefore, these kind of situation if confronted by law courts, normally the theory of proportionality would be invoked. 45. Though this case cannot be estimated that the punishment ultimately given to the petitioner shocks the conscience of the law court, but at the same time, this Court is having the feeling that some lenient view could be taken against the petitioner. Even this view is expressed by this Court because, out of the four delinquents, one is no more, another one is escaped from the clutches as his punishment has been set aside by this Court, of course, on specific technical reasons and against another man, the department itself decided to drop the proceedings. 46. If at all the charges framed against these delinquents had been proved, for which if all the four delinquents have to be punished, because of the peculiar facts, now the present petitioner alone has been punished with maximum penalty, thereby only the family of the petitioner alone now is facing the situation which I have expressed above. 47. In view of these peculiarity and in a different context, since this Court confronting the disciplinary proceedings issued against this petitioner, this Court feels that, some lenient view can be taken by the respondents, by invoking the theory of proportionality in awarding the penalty against the petitioner and such kind of discretion instead of being exercised by this Court, it is the opinion of this Court, to leave it to the discretion of the disciplinary authority. 48. Accordingly, this Court, while confirming the punishment awarded against the petitioner, is inclined to give a direction to the respondents, especially the disciplinary authority to review the order, for which, already a review petition had been filed by the petitioner, which according to the petitioner, has not yet been disposed, because of the pendency of this writ petition, for all these years and while reviewing the same, the aforesaid observation made by this Court shall be borne in mind and accordingly, a reduced punishment, if the disciplinary authority decides to inflict, can be inflicted, against the petitioner. 49. In the result, the following orders are passed in this writ petition: (i) That the impugned order is sustained, therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 49. In the result, the following orders are passed in this writ petition: (i) That the impugned order is sustained, therefore the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. (ii) However, in view of the peculiar circumstances, which has been discussed above, there shall be a direction to the respondents, i.e. the Disciplinary Authority, to review the punishment by deciding the Review Petition already filed by the petitioner and while reviewing the same by taking a pragmatic view with equity, the Disciplinary Authority shall pass an order deciding to give a reduced punishment to the petitioner. (iii) The needful as indicated above shall be undertaken by the Disciplinary Authority, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in this context, the petitioner is directed to send a copy of this order along with the copy of the review petition, which has already been filed and it is stated to be pending before the Department, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 50. With the above direction, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.