JUDGMENT : S.M. Subramaniam, J. (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records on the file of the 1st respondent in ROC.No.644/2011/C1 dated 29.11.2013 in D.P.No.2/2010 dated 16.03.2011 passed by the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in to service with all consequential service and monetary benefits.) 1. The punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the writ petitioner is sought to be quashed in the present writ proceedings. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant in the year 2001. The Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and a Charge Memorandum under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules was issued in proceedings dated 14.09.2010. 3. Annexure-II to the Charge Memorandum provides statement of allegations and imputation of misconducts. Annexure-III provides list of documents relied on by the Disciplinary Authority. Annexure-IV provides list of witnesses to be examined. 4. Thus, we do not find any infirmity in respect of the Charge Memorandum issued against the writ petitioner issued under Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules. 5. The petitioner submitted his explanations denying the charges. Not satisfied with the explanation, the Disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiry Officer, who in turn conducted an inquiry and submitted his Final Report holding that the Charge Nos. 1 to 3 are held proved and Charge Nos.4 & 5 not proved. The findings of the Inquiry Officer had been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. Enclosing the copy of the inquiry Report, the 2nd Show Cause Notice was issued to the Delinquent Officer seeking further objections on the findings of the inquiry Officer. The petitioners submitted his objections. Considering the objections and materials available on record, the punishment of dismissal from service was imposed on the writ petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority. 6. The appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was also rejected. Thus, the present writ petition came to be instituted. 7. The Disciplinary Authority had followed the procedures as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules scrupulously. The Rules of natural justice have been followed. The Delinquent Officer was provided with an opportunity to defend his case. 6. The appeal filed before the Appellate Authority was also rejected. Thus, the present writ petition came to be instituted. 7. The Disciplinary Authority had followed the procedures as contemplated under the Discipline and Appeal Rules scrupulously. The Rules of natural justice have been followed. The Delinquent Officer was provided with an opportunity to defend his case. The Delinquent Officer participated in all the proceedings and submitted his objections/explanations and led evidence during the course of domestic inquiry. Thus, there is no infirmity as such in respect of the procedures followed. 8. The charges are undoubtedly serious. The findings of the Inquiry Officer would be relevant for the purpose of considering the case on merits. The findings in the Inquiry Report in respect of all the 5 charges are as under: 6. PW.1 Thiru Sundaravelu, Copy examiner who is also attending FIR Section in his report ExP1 and in his evidence stated that on 05.05.2010 the FIRs stated in the list Ex.P2 were entrusted to delinquent No.1 and he failed to resubmit the same. PW.2 Thiru Elavarasan, Assistant, PW3 Thiru Karunanidhi, Head Clerk and PW4 Thiru N.Kothandaraj, Judicial Magistrate No.II held additional charge of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Vedaranyam also deposed that 17 FIRs stated in Ex.P2 were brought to PW4 for necessary orders by delinquent No.1 and after passing orders the same along with the other 3 FIR stated in Ex.P2 were handed over to delinquent No.1 for resubmitting the same to District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedaranyam. It is also admitted in delinquent No.1's evidence as DW4 and in his explanations that he attended the duty of taking the court records to Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagapattinam for getting orders on 03.05.2010, 4.5.2010 and on 05.05.2010 and he failed to resubmit the FIRs entrusted to him in the Court either on 05.05.2010 or thereafter. It is also admitted that it is customary to resubmit the records in the next day and delinquent No.1 being a responsible staff of the court failed to discharge his duties and caused loss to the FIRs and connected papers stated in Ex.P2. This amount to lack of devotion to duty, dereliction of duty and so the charge No.1 against the delinquent No.1 stands proved. 7. This amount to lack of devotion to duty, dereliction of duty and so the charge No.1 against the delinquent No.1 stands proved. 7. The delinquent No.1 in his explanation and in his evidence stated that at the oral instruction of delinquent No.3 he handed over the said FIRs to delinquent No.2 which is denied by them in their explanation and evidence as DW1 and 5 respectively. To prove the said version except the evidence of delinquent No.1 no other material is available. Moreover DW4 in his evidence stated that just because he applied for casual leave on 06.05.2010 as per Ex.P4 and D1 he handed over the above records to Delinquent No.2 at Nagapattinam itself. DW1 in his evidence stated that he contacted D1 over phone about his location at Nagapattinam in order to give his casual leave application for being submitted to Court for which D1 replied that he was at Tasmac wine-shop near Nagapattinam Railway Station, when D2 went there D1 was found consuming liquor with his friends and the Court records which D1 carried from Judicial Magistrate No.IX Court, Nagapattinam were found drenched at the wine shop table. D2 put the court records in a polythene cover and gave his leave letter and D1 took them in a bicycle. This fact is spoken of by DW2 also. Though it is denied by DW4, the fact of taking the court records to places unconnected to court by D1 is highly improper and that is the basic cause for loss of those records stated in Ex.P2. As such D1 being a Junior Assistant working in District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Vedaranyam abused his position as responsible court staff and is unbecoming of a responsible Government Servant. Hence the 2nd charge also stands proved in all preponderances of probability. 8. DW4 in his evidence admitted that he went to Nagapattinam super market alone with case records to buy butter to his younger son. Wheres DWs 1 and 2 deposed that D1 was found consuming liquor at the wine shop near Nagapattinam Railway Station and the case bundle was on the wine shop table and got drenched. If it so, D2 being a record clerk of that court is having every responsibility to take those case records and ensure safety till they were resubmitted to Court. But D2 also not taken care to safeguard the court records. If it so, D2 being a record clerk of that court is having every responsibility to take those case records and ensure safety till they were resubmitted to Court. But D2 also not taken care to safeguard the court records. D2 also admitted in his evidence as DW1 that he went to Nagoor Police Station and made inquiry about the missing of records brought by D1 in order to help D1. D2 not even cared to report the same to D3 or other Court staff about the missing of records and colluded with D1 in suppressing the loss of court records. Also it is not fair on the part of D2 to hand over the case records and Casual Leave Application to D1 who is under intoxication. Again as per the evidence of DW1 and 3 it is stated that D2 went to D1's house on the next day and informed about the loss of those records and both jointly searched for the missing of records. This shows that D2 acted in connivance with D1 concerning the missing of records. So the 3rd charge against D1 and D2 stands proved in all preponderance of probability. 9. The fourth charge is that D1 preplanned to act in favour of the accused concerned in the FIRs in Ex.P2 after having secret contact with their advocates and D2 acted in connivance with D1. In this respect Pws 1 to 4 let in no evidence and no accused is said to be wrongfully benefited due the act of D1 and D2 in causing loss of the records stated in Ex.P2. PW4 and PW5 stated in their evidence that the copies of FIRs have been obtained from the concerned Police Stations, records are reconstructed as per the order bail bonds are issued and no one is personally affected. Anyway no accused concerned in the loss FIR is neither wrongfully benefited nor availed any concession what so ever at the instance of D1 and D2. So the fourth charge against D1 and D2 in all probability stands not proved. 10. The fifth charge is that D3 being the Head Clerk has not passed written order when the FIRs were entrusted to D1 for getting orders from Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagapattinam not supervised the work of the staff and thereby failed in his duty. So the fourth charge against D1 and D2 in all probability stands not proved. 10. The fifth charge is that D3 being the Head Clerk has not passed written order when the FIRs were entrusted to D1 for getting orders from Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagapattinam not supervised the work of the staff and thereby failed in his duty. In fact the FIR section was attended by PW1 and the movement register is also not properly maintained. Though it is the duty of Head Clerk to supervise the entire office work, there is no evidence as to connivance with D1 and D2 in the loss of FIRs in Ex.P2. However he also reported the same belatedly to Judicial Magistrate No.II, Nagapattinam on 07.05.2010 through a report and further report to Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam. Anyhow D3 ought to have verified the movement Register and see D1 to make entry before leaving for Nagapattinam on 5.5.10 and to report the fact of non submission of records sent through D1 on 5.5.10 without least delay i.e., atleast on 06.05.2010 itself. This is a lapse on the part of D3 and that itself is not enough to substantiate the fifth charge against D3. Hence the 5th charge is also in all probability stands not proved.” 9. High Court in exercise of Judicial Review must restrict his 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) the findings of the Disciplinary Authority suffer from perversity; (v) the penalty is disproportionate to the proven misconduct. 10. In the present case, the Rules of natural justice have been complied with. The Delinquent Officer had been provided with sufficient opportunity to defend his case. He participated in the Inquiry proceedings and availed of the opportunities. The findings of Inquiry Officer as extracted above would reveal that the misconducts against the petitioner have been proved based on some evidence. The Statutory Rules governing the disciplinary proceedings i.e., Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were observed, while conducting the disciplinary inquiry. 11. Thus, we do not find any perversity in the disciplinary proceedings and the findings made by the Inquiry Officer, which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The Statutory Rules governing the disciplinary proceedings i.e., Rule 17(b) of the Tamil Nadu Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules were observed, while conducting the disciplinary inquiry. 11. Thus, we do not find any perversity in the disciplinary proceedings and the findings made by the Inquiry Officer, which was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority. The proved charges are grave in nature. Therefore, we do not find any disproportionality regarding the quantum of punishment imposed on the writ petitioner. Thus, there is no reason whatsoever to interfere with the quantum of punishment. 12. Consequently, the orders impugned stand confirmed and this Writ Petition stands dismissed as devoid of merits. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.