JUDGMENT : (D.K. SINGH, J.) The petitioner, who was working as Overseer, 66KV Sub Station, Njarakkal, has approached this Court in the present writ petition, challenging the punishment order of compulsory retirement dated 13.10.2022 as well as the order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the Chairman / Managing director in appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said punishment order. The petitioner was suspended from service vide the order dated 19.06.2006, while he was working as Lineman Grade I of Electrical Section Central, Ernakulam for the alleged theft of electric energy deducted at three commercial institutions at Ernakulam and at the premise of another Board employee, Sri. A.G Dinesh during the Anti Power Theft Squad (APTS) inspection conducted by the Kottayam unit. 2.The preliminary enquiry conducted by the Assistant Executive Engineer, APTS, disclosed in the findings that the petitioner, in connivance with Sri. A G Dinesh had tampered with the energy meters for illegal gratification. The statement of the consumers recorded during the surprise check and the confessional statement of the employees shed light on the illegal nexus of the Board employees with certain consumers. Therefore, disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner by issuing the following memo of charges dated 16.12.2006:- “1.That a power theft involving tampering of meter and seals was carried out by Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira at the premises of Con. No. 3289 of Electrical Section, Kalamassery which is occupied by Sri. A.G. Dinesh, then Senior Superintendent, Electrical Section, Thevakkal as detected during a suprise inspection of APTS on 06.06.2006. 2. That Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira carried out the power theft at the premises of M/s Jos Opticals, Cons. No. 1109 under Electrical Section, College, Ernakulam. It is revealed that theft was done in connivance with Sri. A.G. Dinesh, then Senior Superintendent of Electrical Section, Thevakkal, for which an illegal gratification of Rs. 3000/- was accepted from the shop owner. 3. That Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira carried out the power theft of M/s VAS Hotel, Ernakulam, North (Cons. No. 3022 of Electrical Section, Central Ernakulam ) in conspiracy with Sri. A.G. Dinesh accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/-and accepted several times Rs. 1000/- for tampering Electric Meter of the consumer before the regular billing 4.That Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira carried power theft in the premises of M/s Sahara Lodge Convent Road, Ernakulam for which Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira accepted initially Rs. A.G. Dinesh accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/-and accepted several times Rs. 1000/- for tampering Electric Meter of the consumer before the regular billing 4.That Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira carried power theft in the premises of M/s Sahara Lodge Convent Road, Ernakulam for which Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira accepted initially Rs. 5000/- from the consumer and accepted several times Rs. 3000/- for tampering the Electric Meter before the regular billing. 5. That the involvement of Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira in the theft of energy in various consumer premises has resulted in large revenue loss to the Board. 6. That the involvement of Sri. Joseph Freud Pereira in such illegal activities is a matter of dishonesty and grave misconduct on your part which spoiled the image of the KSEBoard.“ 3.As the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory, a formal departmental enquiry was ordered by the disciplinary authority vide the order dated 11.06.2007. At the conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report with findings and observations that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee were proved and established. The disciplinary authority, after considering the reply to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, found the petitioner involved in cheating his employer for some illegal gratification, and his conduct was coming under the purview of culpable misconduct deserving major punishment. Punishment of ‘removal from service’ was inflicted upon the petitioner vide the order dated 07.11.2014. 4. Aggrieved by the said order of punishment of ‘removal from service’, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Chairman and Managing Director, the appellate authority on 10.12.2014. The appellate authority examined the appeal in detail and, after hearing him in person, observed that the charges levelled against the delinquent employee/petitioner were proved and established both in preliminary and departmental enquiries. The petitioner, being an employee of the Board, was involved in the act of power theft, and that had lowered the morale of the Board and tarnished the image of the Board among the general public. The misconduct of the petitioner also caused revenue loss to the Board. The petitioner, being an employee of the Board, was involved in the act of power theft, and that had lowered the morale of the Board and tarnished the image of the Board among the general public. The misconduct of the petitioner also caused revenue loss to the Board. However, considering the pathetic financial condition of the family of the petitioner, taking a lenient view, the appellate authority decided to reduce the punishment of the removal as ‘compulsory retirement’ with effect from the date of removal from service vide the order dated 06.08.2015 in order to enable him to avail the pensionary benefits. 5.The petitioner aggrieved by the order of punishment and appellate order filed W.P(C) No. 27655/2015 before this court. This Court, vide the order dated 14.11.2017, set aside the order passed by the appellate authority and directed for reconsideration of the appeal. On remand by this court, the appellate authority again passed the order on 20.01.2018 for compulsory retirement. 6.The petitioner again challenged the said order of the appellate authority by filing W.P ' No. 7049/2018. This court again quashed the order dated 20.01.2018 passed by the appellate authority vide the judgment dated 09.03.2018 passed in the said writ petition. This court was of the opinion that the appellate authority did not explain how it arrived at the conclusion for inflicting the punishment of compulsory retirement and directed the reconsideration of the appeal in light of the observation contained in the said judgment. 7.On remand, the appellate authority passed the order dated 20.06.2019. The petitioner again challenged the said order by filing W.P' No.32287/2019, and this court, vide the judgment dated 19.01.2021, again set aside the order of the appellate authority and directed for fresh consideration of the appeal. The appellate authority again, on 26.03.2021, reconsidered the appeal and confirmed the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner challenged the said order of the appellate authority in W.P' No. 16264 of 2021. This court, vide the judgment dated 03.07.2022, set aside the appellate authority order imposing the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner was issued a fresh show cause notice on 24.09.2022, to which the petitioner submitted the explanation on 09.10.2022, and the disciplinary authority, vide the order dated 13.10.2022 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner. This court, vide the judgment dated 03.07.2022, set aside the appellate authority order imposing the punishment of removal from service. The petitioner was issued a fresh show cause notice on 24.09.2022, to which the petitioner submitted the explanation on 09.10.2022, and the disciplinary authority, vide the order dated 13.10.2022 imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service on the petitioner. The said order of the compulsory retirement from service has been upheld by the appellate authority vide the impugned order dated 09.02.2023 passed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the Board, the appellate authority. 8.The fresh show cause notice was issued in compliance with the judgment passed by this court W.P' No.16264/2021, whereby this court set aside the order of punishment and the order passed by the appellate authority and directed the Chief Engineer to issue a notice to the petitioner seeking his explanation on the findings of the enquiry report. This court further observed that if the explanation was not found satisfactory, the disciplinary proceedings should continue in strict compliance with the procedure prescribed in the KSEBL employees (CC&A) Regulations, 1969. 9.In compliance with the judgment, the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the petitioner seeking his explanation on the enquiry report, and after considering the reply submitted by him, a notice proposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 07.11.2014 was issued to him. The disciplinary authority meticulously examined the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice and, after giving him an opportunity to hearing, finalized the disciplinary proceedings vide the order dated 13.10.2022 imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement with effect from 07.11.2014. 10.Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner had submitted the appeal, and the appellate authority had dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 13.10.2022 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement on the petitioner with effect from 07.11.2024. 11.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain documents that were served upon the petitioner after the enquiry was over and before the filing of the report. Serving of those documents which were newly introduced in the enquiry had vitiated the entire enquiry, and therefore, imposing the punishment without conducting the proper enquiry is unjustified and illegal. 11.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain documents that were served upon the petitioner after the enquiry was over and before the filing of the report. Serving of those documents which were newly introduced in the enquiry had vitiated the entire enquiry, and therefore, imposing the punishment without conducting the proper enquiry is unjustified and illegal. The serving of documents after the enquiry, which was relied upon in the enquiry report and the punishment on the basis of the said enquiry report, is illegal and in violation of the principle of natural justice. 12.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent Board has submitted that the enquiry officer examined the prosecution witnesses and defence witnesses, collected prosecution and defence documents and also analysed the facts and evidence. All sittings were attended by the delinquent employees, and there were no procedural lapses, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The offences/misconduct alleged against the petitioner, which were proven, were grave in nature. It is further submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner that the enquiry officer did not allow to cross-examine the consumers in question other than accepting and recognizing the written documents, i.e. the site mahazar made by the APTS, which were duly signed by the consumers and the delinquent employees does have no substance themselves. The minutes of the enquiry would reveal that the enquiry officer had given sufficient opportunity to the petitioner to produce the witnesses, but he failed to present them in person. It is submitted that a fact not denied need not to be proved. 13.Paragraph 22(2) of the manual of the disciplinary proceedings stipulates that it shall not be necessary to record again the evidence of any witnesses whose sign and statement were recorded in the preliminary enquiry stage. Therefore, it is submitted that there is no vitiating factor in the enquiry officer’s decision. 14. I have considered the submissions advanced. 15. The disciplinary authority has meticulously examined the enquiry report and found that the enquiry had been conducted in accordance with the procedure established by law and every opportunity had been extended to the delinquent employees to present their case. 14. I have considered the submissions advanced. 15. The disciplinary authority has meticulously examined the enquiry report and found that the enquiry had been conducted in accordance with the procedure established by law and every opportunity had been extended to the delinquent employees to present their case. From the record, the disciplinary authority found that the enquiry officer had weighed the site Mahazar of the APTS and depositions made by the witnesses both by prosecution witnesses and the statement offered by the two delinquent employees during the enquiry as well as inspection and arrived by a clear conclusion in the enquiry that the charges levelled against both the delinquents were proved. 16.The documents mentioned in the enquiry report which allegedly had been relied on were signed by the petitioner and Mr. A. G. Dinesh. They never disputed their signatures. It is settled proposition of law that the fact not denied need not to be proved. The enquiry report which is in detail has considered each and every aspects, arguments and defence of the delinquents. 17.In the departmental enquiry, what is required to be considered is the preponderance of probabilities of the guilt of the delinquent employee and not proof of charges beyond a reasonable doubt as in a trial for commission of a crime. The enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority, and the appellate authority all have found the charges proved against the petitioner, but a lenient view has been taken to inflict the punishment of compulsory retirement from service in place of removal from service. 18.It is well settled that this court should not interfere with the departmental proceedings unless the same are in violation of procedure for conducting the departmental proceedings or they are in violation of the principles of natural justice. This court cannot interfere with the quantum of punishment in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, considering the gravity of the misconduct and the charges proved against the petitioner, the punishment of compulsory retirement inflicted upon the petitioner as a result after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings by the disciplinary authority and which has been upheld by the appellate authority does not require any interference by this court. Even otherwise, considering the gravity of the misconduct and the charges proved against the petitioner, the punishment of compulsory retirement inflicted upon the petitioner as a result after the conclusion of the departmental proceedings by the disciplinary authority and which has been upheld by the appellate authority does not require any interference by this court. The petitioner has approached this court several times on some alleged minor infraction of the procedure in conducting the departmental enquiry and appellate proceedings, and therefore, the matter must be given quietus. 19.In view thereof, I do not find any ground for interfering with the well-considered orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities to punish the petitioner with compulsory retirement after the conclusion of the departmental enquiry against him. Thus, the writ petition is dismissed, however, without cost. All the pending interlocutory applications in this writ petition are closed.