Writ courts cannot reappreciate disciplinary evidence where findings are supported by some evidence.

The petitioner, a KSRTC Driver-cum-Conductor, was charged after checking officials allegedly found a passenger travelling without a ticket and accused him of obstructing the inspection, provoking passengers, and refusing to sign the offence memo.

Following a domestic enquiry, the charges were held proved, and the Disciplinary Authority imposed permanent reduction by two stages in basic pay and recovery of ₹5,000 in 20 instalments.

The Tribunal held the domestic enquiry fair, proper and valid; the petitioner did not challenge that preliminary finding. It rejected the reference on the merits, prompting this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227.

Whether the Enquiry Officer’s findings that the charges were proved were perverse or illegal, warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227.

Whether the failure to collect the allegedly ticketless passenger’s address or particulars, by itself, vitiated the domestic enquiry.

Under Articles 226 and 227, judicial review of disciplinary and industrial adjudication is supervisory, not appellate: the reviewing court does not reappreciate evidence merely because another view is possible or the evidence is alleged to be insufficient. Interference may be justified where the process violates natural justice or prescribed procedure, or where findings are perverse, arbitrary, or based on no evidence.

The Court also relied on Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Gajadhar Nath, 2022 Lab. I.C. 323, for the proposition that failure to obtain passengers’ names and addresses does not, by itself, invalidate evidence of misconduct in a domestic enquiry.

The Tribunal’s finding that the enquiry was fair, proper and valid had not been challenged, leaving the Court to consider whether the findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence.

The Corporation’s witness testified that a passenger was travelling without a ticket, a fine was collected, and the petitioner obstructed the checking staff; the Corporation produced the penalty receipt, unpunched ticket, offence memo and report.

The petitioner elicited no material in cross-examination to contradict the witness and produced no evidence supporting his claim that he had issued tickets to all 32 passengers. Applying the limited-review standard, the Court held that this evidence could reasonably support the findings.

The absence of the passenger’s address did not, on its own, undermine the enquiry.

Finding the writ petition devoid of merit, it dismissed the petition.