JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed by the 1st respondent herein in his R.O.No.480/2013, C.No.B2/PR.39/2013 dated 28.12.2013 imposing the punishment of removal from service and the consequential order passed by the 2nd respondent herein in his Rc.No.018664/AP.I(2)/2014 dated 13.11.2014 rejecting the petitioner's appeal petition and the consequential order passed by the 3rd respondent herein in G.O.(D) No.889, Home (Police V) Department, dated 28.9.2016 rejecting the petition and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to reinstate thepetitioner in service with all consequential service and monetary benefits.) 1. The punishment of removal from service and the consequential Appellate orders, confirming the punishment of removal from service are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that he joined as Data Entry Operator in District Police Office at Cuddalore on 22.08.2005. He was posted as Junior Assistant with effect from 26.02.2010. A charge memo under Rule 17 (b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued against the writ petitioner on 21.06.2013. The allegation in the charge memo was that, while he was working as Token Clerk from 22.06.2010 to 07.03.2013 at Cuddalore District Police Office 'E' Section, he was responsible for the misappropriation committed by one Head Constable 1151 Senthilkumar. The allegation is also for being responsible for Head Constable Senthilkumar to misappropriate DCRG amount of Tmt.Banumathi Thanikachalam. Further allegation is for not properly maintained the details in 'E' Section CDs and register, regarding payments made to the retired Government servants, thereby was responsible for the misappropriation committed by the Head Constable Senthilkumar. 3. The petitioner submitted his explanation, denying the allegations. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Enquiry Officer on 11.07.2013, who in turn, conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner defended his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted final report, holding that the charges are held proved against the writ petitioner. Accepting the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a memo, calling further explanation from the petitioner regarding his objections, if any on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The writ petitioner defended his case. The Enquiry Officer submitted final report, holding that the charges are held proved against the writ petitioner. Accepting the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a memo, calling further explanation from the petitioner regarding his objections, if any on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner submitted his further explanation on 02.12.2013 and thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority passed the final order, imposing the punishment of removal from service in proceedings dated 28.12.2013. The petitioner preferred an appeal on 30.01.2014 and the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 13.11.2014. Further, the petition before the Government was also rejected in G.O.(D).No.889, Home (Police V) Department dated 28.09.2016. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the charge memo issued under Rule 17(b) of the Discipline and Appeal Rules regarding the allegation of dereliction of duty without any dishonest motive is improper. All the three charges are regarding the allegation of dereliction of duty and therefore, the punishment of removal from service is excessive. The learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that when several other employees were also involved in official performance of duties and it is a collective decision to be taken, the charge framed against the petitioner alone is improper. 5. It is contended that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in his report is perverse and based on 'no evidence'. One Smt.Angayarkanni, who is responsible for alteration of ECS details being a Data Entry Operator had deposed against the writ petitioner only with an intention to safeguard her position. Thus, the said evidence by Smt.Angayarkanni cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of holding that the charge against the writ petitioner are proved. 6. At the outset, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that it is a case of 'no evidence' and therefore, the order of punishment is to be set aside. 7. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner by stating that, while the petitioner was working as Token Clerk, he was responsible for receiving the Bills from various sections of District Police Office, enter the particulars in Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption 70 register and submitting it to Treasury for passing and encashment along with Compact Discs relating to the bills concerned. Since the payments are made only through Electronic Clearing System nowadays, the token clerk has to go to the Treasury along with one Head Constable called Treasury Head Constable to carry the bills to the Treasury and obtain Token for the bills presented daily and record the same details in the token register maintained by him. The Treasury Head Constable has to watch the number of bills passed by the Treasury every day, bring the list of tokens against such bills and take them to Treasury and then to State Bank of India for receiving the amount upon surrendering Token. In this process, the Treasury Head Constable has to get the bill details that are returned by the Treasury with remarks of defects noticed in the bills along with audit slip from the Treasury and he has to submit those along with respective Compact Discs to token clerk. The Token Clerk is expected to make entries in the records and return the bills to the sections concerned for rectification and resubmission. After rectification, the token clerk will send the bills again to the Treasury along with replies and a new Token number will be obtained from Treasury. The details of amount regarding the bills encashed each day at the State Bank of India will be recorded by the Token Clerk and on the details furnished by him, the Cashier will make entries in the Cash Books such as Main Cash Book Subsidiary Cash Book, Undisbursed Pay Register and such other records. The amounts disbursed each day will have to pass through token clerk through cash memo, cheque memo to the concerned beneficiaries. These registers will be checked every day by the Cash Section Superintendent and Personal Assistant to Superintendent of Police (Accounts) and signatures will be affixed thereon. Thus the Token Clerk is the entry and exit point, through him all the bills are sent to Treasury, payments received and disbursed. 8. Token register Tamil Nadu Tax on Consumption (Bill Register) cash memo, cheque memo and such records which are important are to be maintained by the Token Clerk. But, during the tenure of this petitioner in the year 2013, there were complaints of malpractices and misappropriation of huge amounts, relating to payment of Death cum Retirement Gratuity, Terminal Leave Salary and such payments intended to retired police personnel. But, during the tenure of this petitioner in the year 2013, there were complaints of malpractices and misappropriation of huge amounts, relating to payment of Death cum Retirement Gratuity, Terminal Leave Salary and such payments intended to retired police personnel. Though the bills were encashed in time, the amounts did not reach the payees correctly. In many cases, bills encashed by the Treasury and sent to State Bank of India for payment were credited to account of one Police Constable 1308, Thiru Murali who was a friend of Treasury Head Constable 1151, Thiru Senthilkumar. The internal audit done by the Head of the Department and the Accountant Generals audit report brought out the malpractices. The Treasury Officer had lodged a complaint on 08.1.2013 and a case was registered in Cuddalore District Crime Branch Crime No.1/2013 dated 08.1.2013 u/s. 408, 470, 465, 477 (A) of IPC. A status report was submitted in the matter after investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Cuddalore on 06.3.2013. It came to light that the said Treasury Head Constable 1151, Thiru Senthilkumar had made many corrections in the Compact Discs that were taken by him to the Treasury on his own accord i.e., correcting the account Number of the payee in the Electronic Clearing System payments with the help of the petitioner (Token Clerk) herein and some of the Data Entry Operators. Many of the amount were brought by the Treasury Head Constable belatedly and disbursed through drawing demand draft unnecessarily. In some instances, it was noticed that payments of huge amounts were made from the account of Personal Assistant to Superintendent of Police to the beneficiaries, even though the amount of these bills did not reach the Cash Book. 9. The learned Special Government Pleader further states that the petitioner's complicity in all such matters was brought to light apart from his failure to maintain the Registers properly as Token Clerk in his seat. He had also acted in a manner conniving with the Treasury Head Constable in all malpractices knowingly. Thus, the Treasury Head Constable 1151, Thiru Senthilkumar and his friend Police Constable 1308, Thiru Murali were arrested and remanded for malpractices in respect of total amount of Rs.2,55,62,306/- found by the audit. A sum of Rs.1,35,66,060/- was found credited to the account of Police Constable 1308, Thiru Murali. Thus, the Treasury Head Constable 1151, Thiru Senthilkumar and his friend Police Constable 1308, Thiru Murali were arrested and remanded for malpractices in respect of total amount of Rs.2,55,62,306/- found by the audit. A sum of Rs.1,35,66,060/- was found credited to the account of Police Constable 1308, Thiru Murali. Even after settlement of some amount, a sum of Rs.54,887/- is still under misappropriation by Head Constable 1151, Thiru Senthilkumar with the active support of this petitioner. With regard to the malpractices, departmental action was initiated against Thiru A.Murugan, Superintendent, Thiru G. Rajaraman, Cash keeper and the writ petitioner Thiru M.Karthikeyan. In PR 66/2013 u/r 17 (b) of Tamil Nadu Civil services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 10. The Enquiry officer conducted a detailed enquiry, affording opportunity to the writ petitioner and the writ petitioner utilized the opportunity and defended his case. After adjudication, the Enquiry officer made a finding that the charges are held proved. Accepting the findings, the Disciplinary authority followed the procedures and thereafter, imposed the punishment of removal from service. It is contended by the respondents that the said Mr.A.Murugan, Superintendent, Cash Section was also imposed with the punishment of 'Compulsory Retirement from Service' on 28.12.2013 in P.R.No.64/2012. Similarly, Mr.G.Rajaram, Assistant, Cashier was imposed with the punishment of 'Compulsory Retirement from Service' on 28.12.2013. The Treasury Head Constable 1151, Senthilkumar is facing Criminal case for misappropriation of Government Funds. However, the petitioner was dealt with on the charge in departmental action only. 11. This Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents have initiated criminal proceedings against the said Mr.Senthilkumar for misappropriation of Government funds. However, no such criminal proceedings are initiated against the writ petitioner, considering the fact that he has committed certain official irregularities and not directly involved in the misappropriation of Government funds and that exactly is the reason why the authorities have decided to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings against the writ petitioner and initiated criminal proceedings against the said Thiru.Senthilkumar, Head Constable 1151. Thus, the competent authority had applied his mind, while initiating the proceedings. The report of the Enquiry officer is categorical. The findings are based on the documents and evidences and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses were also considered. 12. Thus, the competent authority had applied his mind, while initiating the proceedings. The report of the Enquiry officer is categorical. The findings are based on the documents and evidences and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses were also considered. 12. The findings in the enquiry report reveals that the petitioner could not able to establish that he has no knowledge about the misappropriation of Government funds committed by the Head Constable Thiru.Senthilkumar. The contention of the petitioner that he has not committed any dereliction of duty, was also not established before the Enquiry officer. Contrarily, the prosecution side witnesses 1 to 3 deposed that the charged official paved way for misappropriation of the Government funds. The enquiry reports of the Additional Superintendent of Police (Crimes), Cuddalore reveals that the charged official in his capacity as Token Clerk had connived with the Head Constable Thiru.Senthilkumar for misappropriation of the Government funds. 13. Based on the clear findings in this regard, the Enquiry officer held that the charges are held proved. With reference to the other charges also, the misappropriation of the funds were established beyond any pale of doubt. 14. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner has connived with the Head Constable and paved way for misappropriation of Government funds and the charges against the writ petitioner are held proved. The authorities competent in the present case had followed the procedures as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules. There is no infirmity in respect of the procedures adopted and the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity to defend his case and he had defended his case by availing the opportunities. Thus, there is no infirmity in respect of the procedures followed for imposing the penalty of removal from service. 15. Regarding the quantum of punishment, this Court is of an opinion that if at all any punishment is shocking to the conscience of the Court, then alone, the Court can exercise the power of judicial review for interference. It is for the Disciplinary Authority to weigh the proved charges and accordingly, inflict the punishments under the Rules. In the present case, the charges of misappropriation of Government funds are grave in nature and the petitioner colluded for such misappropriation and the charges are held proved. Thus, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner cannot be construed as disproportionate or excessive. In the present case, the charges of misappropriation of Government funds are grave in nature and the petitioner colluded for such misappropriation and the charges are held proved. Thus, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner cannot be construed as disproportionate or excessive. The Appellate Authority and the Government also considered the grounds raised by the petitioner and passed orders, confirming the punishment of removal from service, which is based on the documents and evidences and thus, the decision arrived cannot be said to be perverse or infirm. 16. In view of the facts and circumstances, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the orders impugned and accordingly, the same are confirmed. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.