Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to the decision-making process, excluding reappreciation of evidence.

The petitioner, a former Sub-Registrar, was charged with misconduct for allegedly assessing the market value of a commercial property at a lower rate (Rs. 29,000/- per sq. mtr. instead of Rs. 90,000/- per sq. mtr.), thereby causing revenue loss.

Following a departmental inquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 22.07.2019 imposing the punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect and a recovery of Rs. 17,34,193/-.

On appeal, the appellate authority modified the punishment by setting aside the recovery of the monetary amount due to the petitioner’s retirement but maintained the withholding of increments.

The petitioner challenged these orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, alleging bias and lack of evidence.

1. Whether the High Court, in the exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226, can act as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence in departmental proceedings.

2. Whether the findings recorded by the disciplinary and appellate authorities were based on "no evidence" or were perverse so as to warrant judicial interference.

The court applied the settled principles of judicial review in service jurisprudence, primarily relying on State of Karnataka v. N. Gangraj (2020) and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995), which establish that judicial review is confined to the decision-making process and not the decision itself.

It further invoked State Bank of India v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) to emphasize that the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or substitute its own findings for those of the disciplinary authority unless the findings are perverse or based on no evidence.

The standard of proof in such inquiries is the "preponderance of probability" rather than "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

The Court observed that the Enquiry Officer had conducted a fair inquiry, following the principles of natural justice and providing the petitioner an opportunity to examine witnesses.

Regarding the valuation of property, the inquiry report specifically found that the land was commercial and not clearly bifurcated, yet the petitioner failed to submit a correct inspection report, which evidenced negligence.

The Court reasoned that since there was "some legal evidence" to support the charge of misconduct, it could not go into the adequacy or reliability of that evidence.

It noted that acting beyond one's authority in matters involving public money and fiduciary duties is a serious breach of discipline, and the appellate authority had already shown leniency by waiving the recovery amount.

Finding that the departmental proceedings complied with the prescribed procedure and were supported by evidence, the Court held that the petition lacked merit. The writ petition was dismissed, and the punishment of withholding two annual increments with cumulative effect was sustained.