A voluntary confession after a fair departmental hearing does not warrant judicial interference with removal.

The petitioner challenged the order dated 30 June 2003 removing him from service and the appellate order dated 18 December 2003, invoking Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

In the writ petition, he alleged that he had not received a proper opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry and that his confession had been obtained by coercion

At the hearing, he also argued that other employees received lesser penalties and that he was not permitted to cross-examine a key witness

The respondents maintained that the petitioner had been allowed to participate in the enquiry and had confessed voluntarily

Whether the petitioner was denied a proper opportunity of hearing in the departmental enquiry

Whether the petitioner’s confession was obtained by coercion and therefore could not be relied upon

Whether the petitioner’s arguments concerning unequal punishment and the opportunity to cross-examine a key witness warranted interference

The Court considered the petitioner’s challenge under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

It applied the principles of procedural fairness in a departmental enquiry, including the opportunity to respond to the case and examine witnesses, and assessed whether the confession was voluntary or coerced

The judgment cites no statute, precedent, or separate legal test governing unequal punishment; the respondents also objected that discrimination had not been pleaded in the writ petition

The Court found that the enquiry record showed the petitioner had an opportunity to participate, submit his defence, and cross-examine witnesses; it therefore rejected the claim that he had been denied a hearing

It also considered the enquiry proceedings of 19 October 2001, in which the petitioner acknowledged participating in the forged-payment misconduct, agreed to make a written confession, and stated that he knew the conduct was illegal

Because he confessed to his own involvement and also implicated other employees, the Court found no basis to conclude that the confession had been coerced

The judgment records the arguments about unequal punishment and the Manager’s cross-examination but does not separately analyse them; the respondents had objected that discrimination was not pleaded

The writ petition was dismissed