JUDGMENT (Prayer: Appeal preferred under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order dated 30.06.2021 made in W.P.No.18989 of 2013.) Paresh Upadhyay, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is made to the order dated 30.06.2021 recorded on W.P.No.18989 of 2013. This appeal is by the second respondent in the writ petition – the employer. 2. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that, the interference by learned single Judge in the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority - after full-fledged departmental enquiry was not warranted. It is further submitted that, the Appellate Authority had also, after due application of mind, thought it proper not to interfere in the order passed by the disciplinary authority. It is noted that, learned advocate for the appellant has extensively taken this Court through the material on record and has contended that, there was gross misconduct on the part of the writ petitioner and in any case what was alleged against him would at least fall within the four corners of dereliction of duty and therefore the punishment of withholding of increment for three years with cumulative effect can not be said to be disproportionate to the charge against the writ petitioner, even if it is discounted to be dereliction of duty and not gross misconduct. It is submitted that, this appeal be entertained. 3. On the other hand learned advocate for the second respondent/ original writ petitioner has submitted that, after about two decades of service, when the writ petitioner was within the zone of consideration for promotion, something got cooked against him for the purpose of creation of record and the narration in the charge memo itself would indicate that, not only there was no misconduct on the part of the writ petitioner, it can not be said to be even dereliction of duty. Learned advocate for the writ petitioner has taken this Court through the reasons recorded by learned single Judge and has submitted that, none of the findings recorded by learned single Judge can be said to be inconsistent with record, which can be said to be an error which may call for any interference by this Court in this intra-court appeal. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed. 4. It is submitted that this appeal be dismissed. 4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having considered the material on record this Court finds as under:- 4.1 Learned single Judge has on the basis of the material on record recorded satisfaction to the effect that, what was alleged against the writ petitioner could not be termed to be mis-conduct. We have considered the reasons recorded by the learned Single Judge vis-a-vis the satisfaction recorded by the disciplinary authority and we find that, the facts were so gross against the management that not only the final punishment order could not be upheld, the very initiation of departmental inquiry is rightly interfered with by learned Single Judge. For this purpose, firstly reference needs to be made to para : 5 of the order, which reads as under:- “5. At the outset, the first charge was that the petitioner has failed to detect the unauthorized construction and also failed to demolish the unauthorized construction, which paved way for Court case vide W.P.No.8408 of 2010. But, admittedly, Notice No.D, dated 17.08.2009 was issued by the Corporation of Chennai, Zonal Office - IX, Chennai - 15, to stop the construction work and the owner was called upon to produce a copy of the approved plan within three days. From the Notice dated 17.08.2009, it is very clear that the site inspection was made on 17.08.2009 and Notice was also issued under Section 56 and 57 r/w Section 85 of the Tamil Nadu Town and Country Planning Act, 1971, on the same day....” 4.2 Further, on procedural aspect, learned Single Judge has found that, the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law. We have noticed that the inquiry was less to find out the truth more to fix the writ petitioner. While confirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge we note with concurrence the following paragraphs of the judgment under challenge:- “8. Going further, the conduct of the enquiry proceedings would show, it is not in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. From the minutes of the enquiry report, I find that the enquiry was conducted like an interrogative session. There is no Presenting Officer to present the case of the prosecution and to produce evidence for proving the charge. Going further, the conduct of the enquiry proceedings would show, it is not in accordance with the procedure laid down by law. From the minutes of the enquiry report, I find that the enquiry was conducted like an interrogative session. There is no Presenting Officer to present the case of the prosecution and to produce evidence for proving the charge. On the other hand, it appears that questions were put to the delinquents by the enquiry officer himself and the answers were recorded. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report. The enquiry report describes the charge in the first column, the reply furnished by the officials in the second column and the findings in the third column. It proceeded on the basis of what was perceived by the Enquiry Officer and not on the basis of the evidence recorded during enquiry. The Enquiry Officer arrived at a finding on the basis of the Notice issued on 17.08.2009 and Notices dated 09.03.2011 and 11.03.2011 and not on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence given by the parties. The finding was that the officials had taken 17 months to issue lock and seal notice after he has issued notice to stop the construction work. The finding itself disproved the charges and went beyond the scope of the disciplinary proceedings.” 4.3 At this stage, reference is made to the inquiry report, more particularly the findings of the inquiry officer with specific reference to charge no.1. The concluding part of it, reads 'This has led the third party to initiate legal proceedings. Hence this charge held is proved.' If any action of the appellant Corporation is challenged by a citizen before this Court, that itself is not a factor which can weigh against the concerned officer. Though the finding of the inquiry officer in this regard and in this manner could have been viewed very seriously, we leave it there by only holding that, interference in such an inquiry by learned Single Judge can not be said to be an error. 4.4 Further, the satisfaction of the inquiry officer and acceptance thereof by the disciplinary authority – both are contradiction with record, which learned Single Judge has rightly set right. In this regard, reference needs to be made to para : 9 of the order, which reads as under:- “9. 4.4 Further, the satisfaction of the inquiry officer and acceptance thereof by the disciplinary authority – both are contradiction with record, which learned Single Judge has rightly set right. In this regard, reference needs to be made to para : 9 of the order, which reads as under:- “9. It is beneficial to repeat the charges: Charge No.1 was that the delinquent failed to detect the unauthorized construction and failed to demolish the same and Charge No.2 was that not issuing notice in time. On the other hand, the finding of the enquiry officer by itself proved that the notice was issued on 17.08.2009 after detecting the unauthorized construction pursuant to the inspection made on 17.08.2009. In that event, as stated supra, both the charges fall to ground and the finding that delay in locking and sealing the premises is not the charge and it is a subsequent event. Against the enquiry report, the petitioner had submitted his objections, wherein, he had narrated events and stated that after the stop work notice, the owner of the building had approached the Hon'ble High Court by filing a Writ Petition in W.P.No.8408 of 2010 and the Hon-ble High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the respondent from giving effect to the notice dated 24.05.2011.” 4.5 For the above reasons, the relief granted to the writ petitioner by learned Single Judge is just and proper and would not call for any interference. This appeal therefore needs to be dismissed. 4.6 We also note that, the appellate authority also did not consider the appeal properly. The findings of learned Single Judge on that point as noted in para : 13 of the order is taken note by us with concurrence. 5. In totality, we find that no interference is required in the order passed by learned Single Judge and this appeal needs to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, the following order is passed. 6.1 This writ appeal is dismissed with the further observation and direction that, if the second respondent (writ petitioner) is deprived of any of his service benefits, including promotion on higher post, because of the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings in question and the consequential punishment order, which is set aside by learned single Judge - which we are confirming, all those consequential benefits shall be released in his favour. 6.2 No costs. 6.2 No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition would not survive.