Madras HC restates limited scope of judicial review over disciplinary punishment

A government surveyor, compulsorily retired after disciplinary proceedings found him complicit in preparing a survey report and sketch used to issue a bogus land patta, challenged both his retirement and the consequent reduction of his pension before the Madras High Court. He argued the punishment was disproportionate since issuing a patta itself fell within the Tahsildar's domain, not a surveyor's. The Court rejected the plea, restating the settled contours of judicial review over disciplinary orders under Article 226, drawing on the Supreme Court's rulings in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, and Indian Oil Corporation v. Ajit Kumar Singh.

Judicial review examines whether the procedure followed was fair and complied with natural justice, not whether the finding itself was correct; a writ court is not an appellate authority empowered to re-appreciate evidence or substitute its own conclusion unless the finding is perverse or wholly unsupported by evidence. Equally, the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shockingly disproportionate to the proved misconduct. Finding the enquiry fair, the finding supported by the petitioner's own survey report, and the punishment not disproportionate, the Court declined to interfere and dismissed the writ petition.