As per case facts, petitioners challenged a Single Judge's judgment dismissing their writ petitions against disciplinary action (stoppage of annual grade increment) and upholding the dismissal of their departmental appeals. ... Petitioners contended that for the same incident and charges, similarly situated co-delinquents were exonerated while they were punished, alleging arbitrary application of different yardsticks. The appeals sought to challenge this disparity and the Single Judge's decision. The question arose whether the High Court, in judicial review of disciplinary proceedings, can interfere when there is an alleged application of different yardsticks for similar misconduct, and if findings should be reviewed for perversity or disproportionality. Finally, the Court affirmed the Single Judge's dismissal. It reiterated that the High Court's judicial review power in disciplinary matters is limited, should not act as an appellate authority, reappreciate evidence, or interfere with findings unless they shock its conscience. The Court found no violation of natural justice or procedure, stating petitioners must stand on their own merits, not rely on other co-delinquents' outcomes.