The submission is wholly misconceived, and we are not persuaded to take a different view than the one taken by the learned Tribunal. It is well settled that the judicial review of the order of the Tribunal is by and large a differential review. The strict scrutiny method has no place. The Tribunal is constituted under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which itself has constitutional backing under Article 323A of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal being the ultimate fact finding adjudicating body in service law disputes, its decision must be viewed with utmost respect. Unless there is a gross error apparent on the face of the record or the findings of the Tribunal are perverse, interference in judicial review is not called for. There is no gainsaying that judicial review is different from exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which is a continuation for the original proceedings. In judicial review of the orders of the Special Tribunals like the Central Administrative Tribunal, even if a different view is possible from the basis of the material available on record, the High Court cannot interfere, unless there are clear possibilities of miscarriage of justice. Applying the said principles, as mentioned, no interference is called for. The brief reasons are as follows.
