Judicial review of penalty orders is limited where dropped charges were not properly excluded from punishment assessment.

In writ jurisdiction, judicial review of penalty orders is confined to perversity or defects in the decision-making process, not appellate reappraisal. The Court found no breach of natural justice and no perversity in the appreciation of the defence, but held that the punishment was not properly assessed after the Appellate Authority had dropped Charges I and IV. The Tribunal also failed to notice this material aspect when it dismissed the original application. The impugned order was quashed and the matter remitted to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment afresh on the basis of Charges II and III alone.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order upholding the penalty could stand when the Appellate Authority had dropped Charges I and IV but the punishment was imposed without properly considering only Charges II and III for determining the quantum of penalty.

Analysis: The Court held that in writ jurisdiction it would not act as an appellate forum and would interfere only where there is perversity or defect in the decision-making process. Since there was no complaint of violation of natural justice and no perversity was found in the appreciation of defence, the only material error identified was that the Appellate Authority had expressly dropped Charges I and IV yet the operative reasoning on punishment did not reflect proper consideration of that position. The Tribunal also failed to notice this aspect while dismissing the original application.

Conclusion: The impugned order of the Tribunal was quashed and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal afresh on the quantum of punishment after treating Charges I and IV as dropped and considering only Charges II and III.

---