Courts cannot reappreciate disciplinary evidence where proceedings are fair and findings rest on some evidence.

A complaint alleged irregularities in identifying beneficiaries under a housing scheme, including allotments to relatives of the Gram Panchayat President.

The petitioner, a Panchayat Development Officer, was proceeded against under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957.

The enquiry found the charges proved, including that multiple beneficiaries belonged to one family and that housing records contained discrepancies.

The State Government withheld 10% of the petitioner’s pension for five years.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed his challenge to that penalty, and he sought judicial review of the Tribunal’s order.

Whether the Tribunal’s refusal to interfere with the pension penalty was legally sustainable, having regard to the enquiry findings and the limits of judicial review

Whether the petitioner was entitled to exoneration because the other officer charged in the same proceedings was exonerated

Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, governed the entrustment of the departmental enquiry to the Lokayukta; Rule 3(1)(i)–(iii) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966, formed the basis of the misconduct charge.

Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, was referred to in connection with the Lokayukta’s recommendation for action.

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, a reviewing court does not reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters; intervention is confined to recognised grounds, including procedural unfairness, consideration of irrelevant matters, findings unsupported by evidence, or punishment that shocks the conscience.

The Court relied on Union of India v. Pranab Kumar Nath, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2893, which cited Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran.

The Court found that the petitioner had received an opportunity to defend himself and cross-examine witnesses, and that the enquiry report relied on oral and documentary evidence concerning family relationships, beneficiary selection, and inconsistencies in housing records.

The petitioner’s parity argument failed because the other officer had handed over charge before the beneficiary list was prepared, whereas the petitioner was the PDO when the beneficiaries were identified.

The Court held that the petitioner’s challenge did not establish a recognised ground for judicial review; reassessing the evidence or the merits of the disciplinary findings was not permissible.

It held that the Tribunal committed no error in dismissing the application and found no basis to disturb the disciplinary penalty.

The writ petition was dismissed.