Is the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt?

Constitution of India — Art.226 — Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 — r.20(1) — Disciplinary proceedings — Judicial review — Delay — Reasoned order — Constitution of India — Art.226 — Judicial review — Decision making process, not merits — Held: Judicial review under Article 226 is an evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits of the decision itself. A Writ Court ensures fairness in treatment, not fairness of conclusion. (¶31, 34) Constitution of India — Art.226 — Departmental enquiry — Re-appreciation of evidence barred — Held further: A Writ Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence or go into its adequacy in a departmental enquiry. The standard of proof is preponderance of probabilities and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. (¶35, 38) Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973 — r.20(1) — Delay — Waiver by participation — Held further: Delay in initiating or concluding disciplinary proceedings cannot vitiate them where the delinquent officer participated without demur and pleaded no prejudice. Mere delay is no ground where the charges are grave and serious. (¶21) Administrative law — Appellate authority — Non-speaking order — Brief reasons mandatory — Held further: An appellate authority's order must indicate at least brief reasons for refusing to accept the grounds raised in the appeal, and reproducing an opinion obtained from the Commission is not enough. Writ Appeal allowed. (¶26, 42)