Courts will not reappreciate departmental evidence absent procedural unfairness or denial of a fair hearing.

The petitioner, a Karnataka State Reserve Police constable, was accused of quarrelling with a colleague and using abusive language in public while on bandobast duty at Surathkal on 18 July 2017.

After a departmental enquiry, the charges were found proved and the disciplinary authority withheld one annual increment with cumulative effect.

The Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal dismissed his application challenging the penalty; he then sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

He argued that some witnesses did not support the charges and that the colleague involved had died during the enquiry.

1. Whether the disciplinary findings and penalty should be set aside because some witnesses did not support the charges and the co-accused colleague died during the enquiry.

2. Whether the Tribunal’s decision warranted interference under the High Court’s writ jurisdiction.

Under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, the High Court’s review of disciplinary proceedings is limited; it does not reappreciate the evidence as an appellate forum absent a demonstrated procedural or legal infirmity.

Departmental charges are assessed on the preponderance of probabilities, and the failure of some witnesses to support the charges does not invalidate findings supported by the available material.

The judgment cites no specific statutory disciplinary provision or precedent.

The Court noted that seven witnesses supported the disciplinary authority’s case and held that the testimony of other witnesses did not negate the charges under the preponderance-of-probabilities standard.

The petitioner did not allege denial of a fair hearing or breach of natural justice, and the Court found no basis to reweigh the evidence or otherwise interfere with the Tribunal’s decision.

The petitioner also did not contend that the penalty was disproportionate.

No further relief was granted.