Judicial review cannot reassess disciplinary evidence absent perversity or procedural illegality.

The petitioner challenged disciplinary and appellate orders dated 3 March 2020 and 16 September 2020.

The disciplinary authority imposed stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and directed that, for the suspension period from 7 June 2014 to 18 January 2017, he would receive only suspension allowances, while the period would count for specified purposes such as pension

The petitioner argued that the evidence, including witness cross-examination, did not establish his fault and that he had registered the documents on the Sub-Registrar’s instructions.

The State submitted that the petitioner dealt with property despite a civil-court stay and had received an opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry.

The High Court examined the District Registrar’s cross-examination, which included evidence that the petitioner registered specified documents despite the stay and returned documents under his own signature while not being the officer in charge.

1. Whether the disciplinary and appellate orders were vitiated by a breach of natural justice or other grounds warranting judicial review under Article 226

2. Whether the High Court could interfere with the disciplinary finding or penalty on the petitioner’s challenge to the evidence and conclusions

Under Article 226, a High Court does not sit as an appellate court in departmental disciplinary proceedings and ordinarily will not reappreciate or re-evaluate evidence. Judicial review may be available where natural justice is violated, the prescribed statutory procedure is breached, the decision rests on extraneous considerations, or the conclusion is so arbitrary or capricious that no reasonable person could reach it; interference is also permissible where a finding is perverse or based on no evidence

The Court also considered the natural-justice principle that an affected person must receive a fair opportunity before an adverse order is made

The Court found that the District Registrar’s evidence supported the disciplinary finding concerning the petitioner’s registration and handling of documents despite the stay, including his return of documents under his own signature when he was not the officer in charge.

It also found that the petitioner had been heard by the disciplinary authority and that the appellate authority had considered his submissions and issued a speaking order.

Applying the limited scope of judicial review, the Court concluded that the challenge did not establish a breach of natural justice, perversity, or another ground for intervention; a reappraisal of the evidence was not warranted.

The disciplinary penalty and the directions concerning the suspension period therefore remained undisturbed.