As per case facts, a tender notice was issued by Indian Oil Corporation. During the tender process, tampering was discovered in the price bids of certain bidders. An inquiry revealed ... that the respondent, Ajit Kumar Singh, along with another employee, was involved, with his signature found on the changed form of quotation. Departmental proceedings led to a major penalty against him, which was upheld by the Appellate Authority and the Single Judge of the High Court. However, the Division Bench of the High Court reversed this order, prompting the Indian Oil Corporation to file the present appeal. The question arose whether the Division Bench of the High Court exceeded its scope of judicial review by re-appreciating evidence as if it were conducting a first-stage inquiry, instead of evaluating the decision-making process for fairness and adherence to due process. Finally, the Supreme Court held that the Division Bench erred in re-examining the entire evidence as if it were a criminal trial re-examination, noting that the Inquiry Officer's finding, including the respondent's original signature on the tampered document, was not adequately considered by the Division Bench. Reiterating that judicial review evaluates the decision-making process, not the merits of the decision itself, and only intervenes in cases of procedural inconsistency, lack of evidence, or perversity, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's order and restoring the Single Judge's decision which upheld the penalty.