The petitioner, a Record Clerk in the Commercial Taxes Department, challenged a disciplinary punishment of 'stoppage of increment for four years with cumulative effect' imposed after a surprise check at Bannari Commercial Taxes Checkpost on 14.10.2003 found him in possession of unexplained cash of Rs.2,600/- along with other unaccounted amounts recovered at the checkpost. The enquiry officer found only one out of four charges proved (possession of unexplained cash), but the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings on the remaining charges and imposed the punishment, which was confirmed in appeal. The Madras High Court, exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, held that a writ court cannot act as a second appellate authority by re-appreciating evidence in disciplinary proceedings, and can only examine whether the enquiry was conducted by a competent authority, followed due procedure, and adhered to principles of natural justice. The Court found the petitioner's explanation that the money was meant to purchase medicine for his daughter unconvincing, noting he was on night shift and had not made the mandatory entry of cash carried in the attendance register.