Courts will not disturb evidence-based disciplinary findings absent perversity.

The petitioner was appointed as a Writer in the third respondent cooperative society in 1990 and later served as Secretary-in-Charge of the fourth respondent society.

After being suspended in 2018, he was charged with misappropriating approximately ₹10 lakh and recommending a ₹1 lakh loan contrary to society guidelines.

He explained that staff shortages led him to entrust work to a Night Watchman and a Peon, who committed the irregularities.

The third respondent imposed compulsory retirement; the petitioner’s challenge before the authorities was unsuccessful.

He then sought judicial review under Article 226, asking the High Court to quash the orders and direct his reinstatement

1. Whether the authorities’ findings that the petitioner was responsible for misappropriation were unsupported by the record or otherwise warranting interference in judicial review

2. Whether compulsory retirement was liable to be set aside on the petitioner’s grounds that his subordinates committed the misconduct and that the punishment was disproportionate

The Court applied the limited scope of judicial review over disciplinary findings: interference is not warranted unless the findings are perverse, made by an incompetent authority, or contrary to the material on record

The petition invoked Article 226 of the Constitution, but the judgment cited no specific statute or precedent

The Court held that the petitioner, as Secretary responsible for the society’s administration and funds, could not avoid responsibility by attributing the misconduct to subordinate staff; if staffing was inadequate, he should have raised the matter with higher authorities.

The record showed a shortage of funds, transactions bearing the petitioner’s signatures, and his admission of the shortage and repayment of the loss.

The Court therefore found material supporting the disciplinary authorities’ conclusion that he had participated in the misappropriation.

It also noted that a co-delinquent had received the same punishment and concluded that the authorities’ findings were not perverse or contrary to the record

It dismissed the writ petition, leaving the compulsory-retirement order in force; no costs were awarded