Departmental enquiry evidence standard: disciplinary findings survive where some evidence exists and judicial review stays limited.

In departmental enquiries, a disciplinary finding will stand where there is some evidence supporting the charge, the inquiry is not perverse, and there is no mala fides or complete absence of evidence. Strict rules of evidence do not apply, and the writ court cannot reappreciate the record as if it were an appellate forum. Documentary material, ledger entries, and the employee's own handwriting were treated as sufficient support for the misconduct finding, and the inquiry report was not invalid merely because it was brief or not drafted like a judicial judgment. The disciplinary action was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the disciplinary action on the ground that the inquiry report was sketchy, unsupported by adequate reasons, and vitiated for want of evidence.

Analysis: The disciplinary record showed documentary evidence linking the respondent to unauthorized loans and withdrawals against FDRs standing in other names and for amounts far exceeding the FDR value. The entries were in the respondent's handwriting, the relevant ledgers were produced through witnesses, and the respondent offered no convincing explanation. In departmental proceedings, strict rules of evidence do not apply; the test is whether there is some evidence on which a reasonable person could reach the finding. Judicial review is limited to examining perversity, mala fides, or complete absence of evidence, and the court cannot reappreciate evidence as an appellate forum. The inquiry report, read with the documents relied upon, contained adequate basis for the findings and was not a case of denial of natural justice.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the disciplinary findings; the dismissal order was sustainable and the respondent's challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In departmental enquiries, where there is some evidence supporting the charge and the finding is not perverse, the writ court will not reappreciate evidence or interfere merely because the inquiry report is not drafted like a judicial judgment.

---