Writ courts cannot reappreciate evidence absent perversity or jurisdictional error in concurrent findings.

Respondent No. 1, a Society Manager, was terminated on 23 September 2004 following allegations of financial irregularities and embezzlement.

The Deputy Registrar set aside the termination and directed payment of wages up to the respondent’s superannuation on 30 November 2004.

The Cooperative Tribunal dismissed the Bank’s appeal.

The Bank then challenged both orders under Articles 226 and 227, relying, among other things, on the respondent’s affidavit, the departmental enquiry, the pending criminal proceedings, and an alleged lack of jurisdiction on the Deputy Registrar’s part.

The respondent disputed the charges and contended that the enquiry denied him an effective opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present evidence.

1. Whether the Deputy Registrar’s and Tribunal’s decisions setting aside the termination were amenable to interference under Articles 226 and 227 on the grounds raised by the Bank.

2. Whether the respondent’s affidavit, the departmental enquiry, or the pending criminal proceedings established grounds to restore the termination order.

3. Whether the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction, or the direction to pay wages up to superannuation was otherwise unlawful.

In exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court does not ordinarily reappraise evidence as an appellate court; interference is warranted where the authority acted without jurisdiction, breached natural justice, committed a clear error of law, or reached findings that are perverse or unsupported by the record.

A departmental enquiry must be fair and afford the employee a proper opportunity to defend himself; holding an enquiry alone does not establish its validity.

An agreement to repay or permit recovery does not, without more, amount to an admission of embezzlement or dishonest misconduct, and the pendency of an FIR does not prove guilt.

No specific statutory provision or precedent is identified in the judgment.

The Court found that the Deputy Registrar and Tribunal had considered the dispute and that the Bank had not shown perversity, legal error, or jurisdictional defect warranting supervisory interference.

The affidavit, read as a whole, reflected willingness to allow recovery but was not conclusive proof of embezzlement; the respondent had also raised explanations concerning the handling and storage of stock.

The Bank did not displace the authorities’ findings concerning the respondent’s lack of an effective opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or present defence evidence.

The seriousness of the allegations and the pending FIR could not substitute for proof, while the Bank produced no material establishing that the Deputy Registrar lacked jurisdiction or that the limited wage direction was unlawful.

It affirmed the Tribunal’s order dated 25 June 2019 and the Deputy Registrar’s order dated 20 February 2015, including the direction to pay wages up to the respondent’s superannuation on 30 November 2004.

No order as to costs was made.