Disciplinary findings stand where the employee fails to establish denial of a fair opportunity to defend.

The petitioner, a salesman at a fair-price shop operated by the fifth respondent co-operative society, was suspended and faced an initial charge memo concerning absence from duty and a stock shortage, followed by a second charge memo alleging further irregularities, including false entries and improper distribution of ration commodities.

He repeatedly sought copies of documents to prepare his defence.

After a departmental inquiry, he was dismissed from service on 26 September 2013.

His revisions were rejected by the third respondent and the State Government.

He then sought certiorari to quash the dismissal and revisional orders and mandamus for reinstatement with consequential benefits.

Whether the petitioner was afforded an adequate opportunity to defend himself, or whether the inquiry and resulting orders violated the principles of natural justice

Whether the findings were unsupported or perverse, or the dismissal punishment was liable to be set aside as disproportionate

In judicial review under Article 226, the Court does not sit as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence; interference may be warranted where there is misreading of evidence, no evidence, or perversity.

In disciplinary proceedings, charges are assessed on the balance of probabilities, rather than the criminal standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.

A revisional or appellate authority must independently apply its mind to the material on record, as recognised in S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India, (1990) 4 SCC 594.

The Court also considered whether the punishment was shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct.

The Court found that the petitioner had notice of the inquiry and appeared before the Inquiry Officer on multiple occasions.

It considered that he had been given an opportunity to peruse the documents on file and that he did not establish denial of an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.

On that record, the Court held that the complaints about non-supply of documents and the absence of cardholder evidence did not demonstrate a breach of natural justice, perversity, or a case of no evidence.

It further held that the disciplinary authority’s findings met the applicable evidentiary standard and that both revisional authorities had independently considered the relevant material.

The petitioner also failed to show that dismissal was shockingly disproportionate.

The writ petition was dismissed, with no costs; the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.