Scope of Judicial Review is limited to the decision-making process, not the merits of disciplinary findings.

The petitioner served as the Director of the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Patna

In June 2017, he was served with a memo of charges alleging: (i) a 42-day delay in submitting blood test reports in a sensitive criminal case despite personal requests from the ADG (CID), and (ii) failing to include recognized universities (Amity and SHIATS) in a list sent to the BPSC, thereby vitiating a selection process

Upon the petitioner's superannuation on January 31, 2018, the departmental proceeding was converted into a proceeding under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules

The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved

Consequently, the State Government issued a resolution on April 24, 2019, directing a 20% deduction of the petitioner’s pension for five years

The petitioner challenged this order via a writ petition, arguing a lack of pecuniary loss and improper consideration of his defense

1. Whether the order of punishment for pension deduction under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was legally sustainable in the absence of proven pecuniary loss to the government

2. Whether the High Court, under Article 226, can reappreciate evidence or interfere with the findings of a departmental inquiry in the absence of procedural irregularity or perversity

Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, which empowers the State to withhold or withdraw pension in cases of established grave misconduct

Regarding the scope of judicial review, the court relied on Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran, establishing that the High Court is not an appellate authority and cannot reappreciate evidence unless findings are based on "no evidence" or are "wholly arbitrary"

Deputy General Manager v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, which limits judicial review to evaluating the decision-making process rather than the merits of the decision

Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, holding that a disciplinary authority need not record elaborate reasons if it accepts the Inquiry Officer's findings

The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings followed the prescribed legal procedure, including the conversion to Rule 43(b) post-retirement

The Inquiry Officer recorded that the charges were proved based on oral and documentary evidence, including the cross-examination of the SP (CID)

The Court noted that the petitioner’s explanations—blaming clerical delays and website downloads—were considered but found insufficient by the authorities

Applying the principles of Gunasekaran and Ajai Kumar Srivastava, the Court held that since the findings were supported by "some evidence" and no procedural irregularity or mala fides were demonstrated, it could not sit as a "court of appeal" to substitute its own judgment for that of the disciplinary authority

The petition was dismissed, upholding the resolution dated April 24, 2019, which directed the 20% deduction of the petitioner’s pension for five years