ORDER : 1. The punishment of termination imposed on the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 02.08.2019 is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was appointed on 12.03.2007 as Driver in the Health Department. His services were confirmed. 3. Two set of charge memorandums were issued against the writ petitioner, framing two set of charges. 4. A set of charges were framed as under: 5. The second set of charges are as under: 6. In respect of two different set of charge memorandums issued, the petitioner was afforded opportunities to defend the allegations. The petitioner submitted his explanations, denying the charges and not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry by affording opportunity to the writ petitioner and submitted his report, holding that the charges are held proved against the writ petitioner. Further, opportunity was provided to the writ petitioner to submit his objections on the findings of the enquiry officer and finally, the Disciplinary Authority passed orders, imposing the penalty of termination from service. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the allegations in the charge memorandums are absolutely false and far beyond the truth. The Disability Certificate issued by the qualified orthopaedic surgeon cannot be modified or clarified with the persons, who all are not qualified as orthopaedic surgeons. Therefore, the very findings of the enquiry officer and consequently penalty are unsustainable and to be set aside. 8. The petitioner states that the 2nd respondent is not a competent authority to reassess the physical Disability after a lapse of several years from the date of appointment and therefore, the very exercise done by the competent authorities are perverse and untenable. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the allegations itself are incorrect and the enquiry was not conducted in a proper manner. The enquiry officer has not given proper opportunity to the writ petitioner and the facts placed by the writ petitioner are not considered by the enquiry officer and for all these reasons, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai has enclosed a Petition of Thiru. 10. The learned Additional Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contentions by stating that the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Chennai has enclosed a Petition of Thiru. I.V. Nagarajan, State Committee Member, M. Communist Party of India, Nethaji salai, Thiruvarur and Thiru. G. Sundarapandiyan, Mazhavarayanallur, Thiruvarur, who had required information under “Right to Information Act, 2005” and ordered to inquire the matter, which contains allegations about getting the job by the Petitioner by producing fake Handicapped Certificate, thoroughly and report the fact to the Directorate. Accordingly a Committee consisting of 6 Officials including two Doctors has been formed by the then Deputy Director of Health Services, Thiruvarur to inquire into the allegations put forth in the Petitions and report. The Committee has also inquired the allegations against the Petitioner and confirmed the contents of the Petitions are true. Further One Dr. Ramakrishnan. Orthopaedic Specialist said to have been issued Physically Handicapped Certificate to the Petitioner Thiru R. Dakshinamurthy. was addressed vide this office Letter R. No. 5934/2018/A2 dated 14.9.2018 and requested him to state whether the Certificate issued to the petitioner is correct one and to furnish the details thereon. Dr. Ramakrishnan, Orthopaedic Specialist has replied vide his letter dated 24.09.2018 that the Certificate said to have been issued to the Petitioner, was not issued by him and Signature in the certificate was not his signature. Also the Dean, Government Thiruvarur Medical College, Thiruvarur in his letter R. No. 6690/MB/2018 dated 22.10.2018 has reported (as reply for this Office Lr R. No. 5934/2018/A2 dated 25.09.2018) that the petitioner was examined by the Medical Board and furnished the percentage of disability of the petitioner which was contra to the certificate produced by the petitioner for getting Government Job. 11. As the allegations against the petitioner Thiru. R. Dakshinamurthy, were confirmed as true in the preliminary inquiries and the documents collected from the Doctors and Medical Board, Charges under rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) rules were framed against the Petitioner vide R. No. 8273/A2/2018 dated 12.06.2019 of the Deputy Director of Health Services, Tiruvarur. 12. The following job seekers have made complaint that the Petitioner Thiru. R. Dakshinamurthy had swindled lakhs of amount as noted against each, with a false promise to get permanent Government job for them. S. No. Name and address from whom the amount was cheated by Thiru. 12. The following job seekers have made complaint that the Petitioner Thiru. R. Dakshinamurthy had swindled lakhs of amount as noted against each, with a false promise to get permanent Government job for them. S. No. Name and address from whom the amount was cheated by Thiru. R. Dakshinamurthy (Petitioner) Cheated Amount 1. Tmt. J. Sutha W/o Thiru. Satheeshguru, Vengaipuram, Savalakkaran Post, Thiruvarur District. Rs. 1,69,000.00 2. Thiru. S. Singaravelu S/o Thiru. Sekar, Vikkirapandiyam, Mannargudi, Tiruvarur District. Rs. 1,80,000.00 3. Mrs. K. Saranya D/o Thiru. Krishnamurthy, Pallankoil, Thiruthuraipoondi Tk, Thiruvarur District. Rs. 80,000.00 4. Mrs. M. Kiruthika D/o Ra. Mathi, North Street, Thiruvanduthurai and Post, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District. Rs. 1,25,000.00 5. Mrs. G. Kaveri W/o Thiru. P. Gunasekaran, 34/37, Kailasanathar Koil Sannathi Street, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District. Rs. 1,80,000.00 6. Thiru. G. Ravikumar S/o Thiru. P. Gunasekaran, 34/37, Kailasanathar Koil Sannathi Street, Mannargudi, Thiruvarur District. Rs. 1,80,000.00 7. Tmt. S. Punitha W/o Thiru. R. Santhoshkannan, 12/A15, Mudukku Street, Thiruvarur. Rs. 80,000.00 8. V. Gomathi W/o Thiru. S. Manimaran, Vellankal, Thiruthuraipoondi, Thiruvarur District. Rs. 1,75,000.00 13. Totally he Cheated the Job seekers for a tune of Rs. 11,69,000.00 (Rupees Eleven Lakhs Sixty Nine Thousands Only). He had made sexual harassment with women job aspirants by Promising to get permanent Government Job for them (Cell Phone Conversation copy of CD in between Thiru. B. Murugadoss, Superintendent and Thiru. R. Dakshinamurthy (Petitioner) is enclosed. 14. For the aforesaid allegations, Charges under rule 17(b) of Tamil Nadu Civil Services (D&A) Rules were framed against the Petitioner Thiru. R. Dakshinamurthy vide this Office R. No. 8273/A2/2018 dated 16.05.2019. 15. An inquiry Officer was nominated vide his Office R. No. 8273-1/A2/2019 dated 18.06.2019 to inquire into the charges framed against the Petitioner as said in Para No. 6 and an Inquiry Officer was nominated vide this Office R. No. 8273/A2/2018 dated.18.06.2019 to inquire into the charges framed against him as Said Para 7. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer has submitted the “Inquiry Officers Report” on 08.07.2019 and 22.07.2019 stating that all the charges levelled against the individual (Petitioner) in both charge memos are Proved. 16. The Inquiry Officer-s reports were communicated to the Petitioner so as to enable him to furnish his further representation on the inquiry Officers report. Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer has submitted the “Inquiry Officers Report” on 08.07.2019 and 22.07.2019 stating that all the charges levelled against the individual (Petitioner) in both charge memos are Proved. 16. The Inquiry Officer-s reports were communicated to the Petitioner so as to enable him to furnish his further representation on the inquiry Officers report. Accordingly the delinquent Officer i.e. Petitioner has submitted his further representation vide letter dated 30.07.2019 and the same was carefully examined by the then Deputy Director of Health Services, Thiruvarur and decided that the reply furnished by the Petitioner was not satisfactory level and not maintainable either by law or on facts. 17. As the Charges framed against the Petitioner, i.e. (1) he got the Government job by Producing fake handicapped Certificate thereby he cheated the Government, (2) he swindled huge amount of job seekers, with false promise to get Permanent Government Job for them and (3) sexual harassment with women job seekers, are proved beyond the doubt, the punishment of “Dismissal From Service” was imposed on the Petitioner, in the final orders issued vide this Office R. No. 8273/A2/2018 dated 12.08.2019. 18. Considering the arguments as advanced by the respective learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties to the lis on hand, this Court exercise of judicial review must restrict its review to determine whether: (i) The rules of natural justice have been complied with. (ii) The finding of misconduct is based on some evidence. (iii) The statutory rules governing the conduct of the disciplinary enquiry have been observed. (iv) Whether the findings of the disciplinary authority suffer from perversity. (v) The penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. 19. In the present case, the petitioner was afforded with an opportunity to defend his case at every stage in consonance with the Discipline and Appeal Rules. Thus, the rules of natural justice had been complied with and there is no violation as such. The enquiry officer has elaborately considered the facts, circumstances, documents and evidences. 20. Perusal of the enquiry report reveals that every charge has been adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences and therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer is undoubtedly based on documents and evidences and there is no vagueness or otherwise in respect of the findings of the enquiry officer in his report dated 16.05.2019 and 22.07.2019. 20. Perusal of the enquiry report reveals that every charge has been adjudicated with reference to the documents and evidences and therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer is undoubtedly based on documents and evidences and there is no vagueness or otherwise in respect of the findings of the enquiry officer in his report dated 16.05.2019 and 22.07.2019. In fact, the enquiry report dated 22.07.2019 reveals that complainants, who raised an allegation of cheating against the writ petitioner were examined and their statements were recorded. Even the mobile phone conversions were also recorded and considered by the enquiry officer for forming final opinion. When the documents and evidences are sufficient enough to form an opinion regarding the allegations, the enquiry officer arrived a conclusion that the charges are held proved. Thus, the findings of the enquiry officer is based on the documents and evidences and there is no infirmity as such. Consequently, the findings did not suffered from any perversity. 21. Finally regarding the quantum of punishment, this Court is of the considered opinion that the proved charges against the writ petitioner are grave in nature. The charges relating to production of false Disability certificate and cheating and misusing them on various circumstances were established beyond any pale of doubt and that being the case, the punishment of dismissal from service is just and proper and there is no disproportionality. 22. The power of High Court to exercise power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to ensure the processes, through which, a decision is taken by the competent authorities in accordance with the Statutes and Rules in force, but not the decision itself. 23. Therefore, re-adjudication of facts becomes unnecessary and the charges against the writ petitioner were proved in the enquiry proceedings and the proved charges are grave in nature. That being the factum established, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the writ petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and stands dismissed. No costs.