https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169717 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. en-us Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2015 15:28:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169717 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169717