Writ interference in disciplinary punishment was refused where enquiry findings were evidence-based and not shown to be perverse or illegal.

Writ interference in disciplinary punishment was declined because the enquiry findings were supported by evidence and no perversity, illegality, or absence of proof was shown. The charges concerned failure to verify relevant taxable and transit sales while finalising assessment, which led to assessment omissions and escapement from proper assessment; the successor officer's later assessment saved government revenue. On that basis, the punishment order, including the pension cut and recovery from death-cum-retirement gratuity, was upheld and the disciplinary action remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the punishment imposed in disciplinary proceedings for alleged irregular assessment and resulting recovery from retirement benefits called for interference in writ jurisdiction.

Analysis: The charges were found proved in enquiry in respect of the petitioner's failure to verify the relevant taxable and transit sales while finalising assessment. The record showed that the assessment omissions enabled escapement from proper assessment, and the subsequent assessment by the successor officer resulted in saving of government revenue. The impugned order was based on the enquiry findings and no perversity, illegality, or want of evidence was established to justify interference under writ jurisdiction.

Conclusion: The punishment order was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the disciplinary action, including the pension cut and recovery from death-cum-retirement gratuity, remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary matters, writ interference is not warranted where the findings are supported by evidence and are not shown to be perverse or illegal.

---