Judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is limited to process review, not reweighing evidence or expert opinion.

Judicial review under Article 226 in disciplinary matters is confined to the decision-making process, not a reappreciation of evidence. Where the disciplinary authority's findings rest on some evidence, the High Court should not reassess the adequacy or reliability of that evidence or substitute its own view. Handwriting expert opinion is recognised under the Evidence Act, and in disciplinary proceedings technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply; the standard is preponderance of probabilities. Accordingly, findings based on the enquiry record, expert report and supporting documents are not to be interfered with unless shown to be perverse, jurisdictionally flawed or unsupported by material.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the dismissal order passed in disciplinary proceedings on the ground that the handwriting expert's evidence was unreliable and that the findings were unsupported by evidence.

Analysis: The scope of judicial review under Article 226 in disciplinary matters is confined to examining the decision-making process, and the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority to reappreciate evidence. Where the disciplinary authority's findings rest on some evidence, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence cannot ordinarily be reassessed in writ proceedings. Sections 45, 47 and 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 recognise expert opinion and permit comparison of handwriting, and such expert evidence need not invariably be corroborated. In disciplinary proceedings, technical rules of evidence do not strictly apply and the standard is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. The enquiry officer and disciplinary authority had considered the expert report and the documents themselves before reaching conclusions.

Conclusion: The High Court ought not to have interfered with the dismissal order, and the disciplinary findings were not shown to be perverse or unsupported by material.

Final Conclusion: The employee's challenge to the dismissal failed, and the restoration of the disciplinary penalty was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary proceedings, writ review is limited to jurisdictional or procedural errors, and where findings are supported by some evidence, the court cannot reweigh the evidence or substitute its own view, including on the acceptability of handwriting expert opinion.

---