Judicial review cannot reappraise disciplinary findings absent perversity, no evidence, or natural justice violations.

The appellant, a salesman employed at Fair Price Shops run by the second respondent-Society, faced five disciplinary charges alleging misappropriation at three shops between 1 November 2007 and 31 October 2010.

The proceedings followed an enquiry under Section 81 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. After an enquiry, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service; his revision under Section 153 was rejected. The learned Single Judge dismissed his writ petition challenging those decisions, prompting this appeal.

The appellant argued that the alleged loss could not be attributed to him alone and that he had been denied a fair opportunity to participate in the enquiry.

1. Whether the dismissal could be sustained where other employees were also implicated in the alleged misappropriation.

2. Whether the disciplinary enquiry or findings were liable to be set aside for denial of adequate opportunity or other grounds warranting judicial interference.

The Court considered Sections 81 and 153 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act: Section 81 provided the basis for the enquiry preceding disciplinary action, while Section 153 provided the revision remedy invoked by the appellant.

Applying the principles of natural justice and judicial review in disciplinary matters, the Court stated that interference is unwarranted unless the findings are perverse, wholly unsupported by evidence, or the enquiry is vitiated by a breach of natural justice; the reviewing court does not act as an appellate authority over the disciplinary findings.

The Court found that the appellant had submitted an explanation and that the competent authorities had considered the available materials before finding the charges proved.

The fact that other employees were also proceeded against did not, by itself, absolve the appellant of individual responsibility.

The Court also found no material establishing that the enquiry violated natural justice and identified no perversity or illegality in the disciplinary or revisional findings. Applying the limited scope of judicial review, it declined to re-examine the merits as an appellate authority.

No costs were awarded.