Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Dr U N Choudhury vs Sports on 22 January, 2019
■t L.
l
T f i
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
KOLKATA BENCH
f
KOLKATA
/
r No.O A/351/16/2014
M. A/351/1003/2017
Date of order: 2- 2 • /' / 7
M.A./351/120/2018
Coram : Hon'ble Mrs. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Dr.(Ms) Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
<•
Dr. U.N. Choudhury, r
S/o Shri J.N. Choudhary,
Assistant DirectorfPhysical Education & Sports),
Deptt. Of Sports and Youth Affairs,
A&N Administration,
Netaji Stadium Complex, Port Blair,
R/o 10, Quarry Hill,
Port Blair
......... Applicant
V e^f.sVs
y
Vi r
1. U.n'ion o|lnd.ia-^^^|^ ... .. :
Throughllie^efc/etafy^inistry of ^orfie Affairs,
(Appeal dlci^ing^au^horiW/ Govt. ofJndla,
' N orth^Tp^>;fe^e^FfkliO'®l^; i
i
/
■ .. ^ ' /
.
2. The. Unjon ofjridia-through tneSeefetary,
Govt, of India, Ministry of.YouthJAffairs & Sports,
Departrhent.of Sports,
Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001;
3. The Deputy Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110069; i
4. The Administrator(Lt. Governor),
Andaman and Nicobar Islands,
Raj Niwas, Port Blair;
\
5. The Chief Secretary,
Andaman and Nicobar Administration,
Secretariat, Port Blair;
6. The Secretary(Sports),
Andaman and Nicobar Administration,
Secretariat, Port Blair;
2
i
■(
7. The Director(Sports), ;■
Andaman and Nicobar Administration,
Netaji Stadium, Port Blair;
f Respondents
For the applicant : Mr. G. B. Kumar, counsel
For the respondents : Md. Tabraiz, counsel
ORDER
Bidisha Baneriee, Judicial Member This O.A. has been preferred by the applicant seeking the following relief:-
"A) An order be passed setting gsifle/quashing the impugned order dated 28/02/2011 passed by ,theresp6ndeht'-Nb/j, disciplinary authority wherein imposed minor penalty-cif reduopiontio^a lowefcsta'ge in the time scale of pay by one stage for m 'periodiiDfJhrfe /eRjlrg withfqui%cumulative effect and without adverselft&ffecmg'stfte\dje ''applicant under Rule ll(iii)(a) of the^CCS(^^^^%nd 'fnfygned order No.U- / 14033/5/2011-ANL dat%d^06plWM^:3ypafsed by^ the respondent No.l, Appellate Authority affirf^fh^'tfi^p^pi^nrr^nt imposed by the disciplinary authority mechdni'tally wiiffoui application ofmindT • ) X / B) An order be passedsdireeting the resjsbnOeinhauthorities to transmit the original records of th'exh'se Before, this-'fion'bie/court, so that after perusing the same conscionable justice may be:rehdered..t6 the applicant;
C) Any other relief or reliefs, order.ororders, direction or directions as your Honour deem fit and proper."
2. The All India Tennis Association(ATTA) decided to adopt 12 Tsunami affected boys of the age of 10-12 Yrs. for a period of 7 to 8 years and to look after the boarding, lodging, education, clothing and tennis coaching of these 12 children at AITA Tennis Academy in Gurgaon, Haryana. Therefore, on 6^ May, 2005 a Press Release was made by the applicant, Assistant Director(SAC) and sent to the Chief Editor, AIR,'the News Editor, Daily Telegram and the News Editor, Aspect Port Blair, which reads as under:-
i' t / j / ■■4 3 1' "Press Release The All India Tennis Association(ATTA) has decided to adopt 12 i Tsunami affected boys of the age of 10-12 Yrs. for a period of 7 to 8 Yrs. The AITA sees tennis as a profession whereby tennis players can make a living either as professional players or through coaching and officiating. AITA has therefore decided to look after the boarding, lodging, education, clothing and tennis coaching of these 12 children at AITA Tennis Academy in Gurgaon, Haryana. The project will cost around Rs.2 crores over a period of 7 to 8 Yrs.
I Delhi Public School Society has also joined hand with the AITA to t provide free education, uniform and books to the Tsunami affected children <* admitted into the National Tennis Academy of AITA.
In this regard a selection trial will be conducted on 12....(not legible) 13th May, 2005 at Netaji Stadium, Port Blair. Interested student falling within the age group can register their names at Netaji Stadium on all working days. The students born on or after 30/4/93 are eligible to participate in this trial. They shall also submit their Date of Birth Certificate as proof in support oftheirrpge\ * ^ fJ -
: v?/-.
tS r.;-
A (Dr. U.N. Choudhary)
.r. V. j . /"%
:A . Assistant Director (SAC)"
V
.f /
Vr
The day of selection waSfjxed'r6^p^nd^6tf May,'.20015 at Port Blair and on I-"' 3. • %.• ,J y different dates in little'A'hdaman^.t.Kltfnco'yvrgg^a'nd Car Nicobar etc. Due to some /;\ / WIP visit, selection codld hot^be'hejd on the sph'eddled date. However, the order ! / \ No.208 dated 10.05.2005'^wasvjssued^ WHeceby ,the following officers were y-f . . o assigned the duties to conduct the preliminary selection at Netaji Stadium, Port Blair:-
1. Shri Easudasan, Coach, SAI, i 2,. Shri S.K. Ghosh, Coat, SAI, ' 3: Shri Joy Pinto, In-charge (Sports).
Final ranking of the children was to be decided by the committee ( comprising of the following officers ?
l.Sri Joy Kumar Roy, AD (SAI), ;
2.Dr. U.N. Choudhary, AD(SAC) i.e. the applicant,
3. Dr.(Smt.) Lally Joseph, Lecturer(PE), JNRM.
! / !.
V 1 4 A letter was sent to the Education Officer, Car Nicobar, The Assistant Education Officer, Nancowry, The Principal, GSSS, Campbell Bay, The Principal,GSSS,Hut Bay.
4. After such publication, 26 children registered their names for such selection but on the scheduled date, only 5 children attended the Netaji Stadium for selection test. A chart was prepared showing the evaluation standard for physical development and physical fitness for 5 boys who attended the test. It was handed over to the Assistant Director(SAC) for further necessary action. ;■ However, Smt. Lali Joseph, Lecturer, who was supposed to be a member of the Selection Committee did not attend the final selection. The final list was prepared by Mr. Joy Kumar Roy, A.D., SAI and U.N..Choudhary, Assistant Director(SAC) i.e. * * r*s * the present applicant.
✓
a * ' . , • ; y • * - x. \
5. Following the selection, a chargeTriemo-was^issued^galnst the applicant with ■ '-'V I * ft. >v the following articles of;tharge|:-_--;i^pc £ i ;
\ Dr. UN Choudhary wMk^unWmtrfg^^ist^Director (SAC) during April . 2005 in the Directorate of\Ybuth$ffairs, Spor&dhtflCdlture, Netaji Stadium, Port Blair did not follow all the^coRditijdhS'-.mentSoned in' the letter dated 14/4/2005 received from Shri. Anil Khannd;,Honordry Executive Mice President and Secretary General All India Tennis Association, "New'Dejhrin the selection of 12 tsunami affected boys from A & N Islands.
ARTICLE-!! That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Directorate, the said DR. UN Choudhary, Asst Director (SAC) did not intimate Smt Ldli Joseph, Lecturer JNRM about her selection as one of the selection panel judges with a bad motive and did not ensure her participation in the selection of 12 tsunami affected boys from these Islands.
ARTICLE-111 I That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Directorate, the said Dr. UN Choudhary, Assf. Director (SAC) deliberately did not send any communication to the Principal, GSS (Campbell Bay), Principal, GSSS (Hut Bay) Asst. Education Officer. Nancowrie thereby obstructing wide publicity of the selection of 12 tsunami affected boys in A & N Islands in accordance with letter dated 14/4/2005 from Shri Anil Khanna, Honorary Executive Vice President and Secretary General, AH India Tennis Association, New Delhi with a bad motive and ensure the selection of his son and selection of ward of his colleagues.
^.
5:
'r / ARTICLE-1V * ■ That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Directorate, the said Dr. UN Choudhary, Asst. Director (SAC) managed to hold letter No. 382 (12)-20/SAC/05 dated 6/5/2005 addressed to the EO, Car Nicobar, AEO, Noncowrie, Principal, GSS (Campbell Bay), & Principal, GSSS (Hut Bay), in order to ofastruct wide publicity of the letter No. Nil dated 14/4/2005 of Shri Anil Khanna, Hon Executive Vice President and Secretary General, AITA, New Delhi with a bad motive to ensure that his own son and ward of his colleagues are selected.
ARTICLE-V That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Directorate, the said Dr. UN Choudhary, Asst. Director (SAC) managed to publish the news for selection of candidates for sending to the AITA in accordance with letter No. Nil dated 14/4/2005 from Shri. Anil Khanna, Honorary Executive Vice President and Secretary General, All India Tennis Association, New Delhi in the Daily Telegram to one day i.e. on 8/5/2005 (Sunday) instead of at least 3 consecutive days for wide publicity with a bad motive and ensure the selection of his son and the son of his colleagues.
.. <\v
ARX1CLE-VI \
That during the qforesaid^periqd. cmchiAthile fuhctipning in the aforesaid Directorate, the said Dr.r^N Clj&uclhgfy\Jis£f/$$gctof1(SAfcj obstructed the wide publicity of letter No./Nil defied Shff/Ahil Khanna, Honorary Executive Vice Presidenf&nd S'dcf^a^^efefG^/ffS/ Delhji '*• V'Y' .r / \ % \ ^<0 ^ARtl 0. LE -VI hr That during the afor£saJd['$iiodhaftfr / in the aforesaid Directorate, the said Dr. UNXhoudhary Assis^Directpr (SAC) did not give wide publicity to the selectiompf pandicfgtes-for 'SendingAo/AITA through Director of Education, DEO of South ' Andaman; DEO yWjmberlygunj) DEO (Rangat), AEO (Mayabunder). ' ^ ARTICLE-VIII That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Directorate, the said Dr. UN Choudhary, Asst Director (SAC) did not prepare combined merit list for the candidates from C/Bay and Port Blair after conducting a selection test for making a final merit list.
ARTICLE-IX That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Directorate the said Dr. UN Choudhary, Assistant Director (SAC) did not pay attention to select genuinely tsunami affected boys in these Islands in accordance ; with the letter No. Nil dated 14/4/2005 of Shri Anil Khanna, Honorary Executive Vice President and Secretary General, All India Tennis Association, New Delhi.
ARTICLED That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid Directorate, the said Dr. UN Choudhary, Assistant Director (SAC) selected his own son in the guise of tsunami affected person concealing his actual identify.
I 6 > Dr. UN Choudhary, Assistant Director (SACj by his above acts exhibited lack of absolute integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Govt Servant thereby contravening Rule 3 (i) (iii) (i) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964."
6. The Enquiry Officer found that none of the charges were proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority issued its disagreement note on the findings of the Inquiry Officer which was conveyed to the applicant with a direction to make a representation within 15 days. The applicant submitted a detailed reply to the same. The applicant gave his pointwise reply as under:-
"(1) He stated that the disagreement finding is contrary to his specified duties and office procedures and approval method of selection approved by the competent authorities which has been elaborately mentioned in the 10's report dated 23.10.09. He also stated that the disagreement is based on extraneous to the inquiry proceedings: and if the old and new office procedure manual prescribed by„J;he_Admn.;:is verified to know to whose duty is to dairy and dispgtbh for signed; communication, the question of disagreement would not lidve^arised. ...
(2) He stated 'that diltiiefaBifiiii&tteWjpi'ibas been* made to treat the ps ** * i « Committee 'of Shri Joy Ku/n,ar'h<3y/\Gp^n(fSmt Ldily Joseph as committee of selection. Smfrtally JdMgh had't6\00iothing''with the selection it was only to compile the mhkSlisffiased^ori^th^herit list prepared by the two committee for conducting^selection at Cat Nipqbari & P/Blair without any change and the absence of Smt. tally Joseph/in no way vitiated the selections as alleged, which were done by pthercommittee.
(3) He stated that on the basis of the approval accorded by the competent authority, the letter was issued to all addressees, which the dispatch register prima facie proves, and dispatch is not his duty. Therefore, he cannot be held responsible for without any evidence as once he signed the communication and send to lower staff dealing hand, further action was . his/her part unless any problem in dispatch was brought to him and he failed to solve it Supplied under RTI Act, 2005 (4) As regard issue to advt, he stated that he could not do any thing more than what were approved by the competent authority and this part was not approved by the authorities and hence sending of communications to Principals/AEO of Hut Bay, C/Bay and Nancowrie on his own did not arise.
He further stated that in the entire charge sheet from Article 1 to 10 only one allegation has been levelled and repeated against him that alleged irregularity wos committed purposely to select his own son, though at every stage the approval was accorded by the competent authorities and thus the final list prepared by adopting approved methods by two selection \ i.
7j A committees constructed by the Admn. and complied two merit list by the f / third committee, the CS approved which the disciplinary too has accepted in / / Article B, then the disagreement finds did not stand. / (5) Reg. selection of his son, he stated that one of the criteria for selection was to produce birth certificate to selection board, it is undisputed that the selection committee has selected the candidates only after verifying the birth certificate. The list prepared by the committee constituted for carrying out selection at Port Blair where it has been clearly written 'Prashant S/o Dr. UN Choudhury. The same was ditto written by merit rank compilation committee and placed before the competent authority for perusal and acceptance and approval. Reg. the disagreement that the CO suppressed that his son has been selected by the committee for the said purpose while seeking final approval from the competent authority, the CO stated that this is a new article of charge which the disciplinary authority is bared to bring such new charge which was not the part of enquiry process."
• l "V L
- ^ ' • '
7 That the final list was^repared^b^^r. Joy'Kumar Roy, A.D., SAI and U.N.
A \ \ f / / 7W AA \
■"v.
\
Choudhary, Assistant T)ir§ctor(§ACN.*e^tfoVpresejsit applicant and the son of the f
present applicant was sHlecte|A^9-AaMi|^nras3|rsunaiTi;i affected candidate, in the same selection, where his fath'er^appjoved^Re select-lists Having come to the * ' f-'r~ s '■ s f fore, the matter was referred'to the Vigilante^De'partment. The Vigilance confirmed that the applicant-was TespOnsible^for^handling the scheme and framing the process of selection, therefore, it was his responsibility to obtain approval from the competent authority for issuance of repeated advertisement instead of publishing a news item. He failed to confirm/check the receipt of such important communication from the addresses i.e. AEO, Nancowrie, Principals of GSSS, Hut Bay and Campbell Bay. On 01.11.2011 the matter was directed to be I placed before the Hon'ble Lieutenant Governor, the Disciplinary Authority for consideration and issuance of necessary orders. The reply furnished by the CO and the comments of the Vigilance Branch are reproduced below for ready reference:-
/ L 8 S. Reply in brief furnished by the CO Comments of the Vigilance Branch No.
1. The disagreement finding is contrary to The CO was responsible for handling the his specified duties and office scheme and framing the process of procedures as well as method of selection. Therefore, it was the selection approved by the competent responsibility of the CO to obtain approval authorities which had been elaborately from the competent authority for issue of mentioned in the I.O's report dated repeated advertisement instead of 23.10.2009. That the repeated publishing a news item. Though dispatch advertisement was not part of charge of letter is not his duty, he failed to sheet approved by the authorities and confirm/check the receipt of such an the disagreement is based on issues important communication from the irrelevant to the inquiry proceedings. addressees i.e. AEO, Nancoowrie, Principals ofGSSS, Hut Bay & C/Bay.
2. That Smti Lally Joseph had to do The final ranking of children was to be nothing with the selection. It was only prepared/decided by the Committee to compile the ranking list based on the consisting of Dr. U. N. Choudhary (CO) Shri merit list prepared by the two Joy Kumar Roy and Dr. Lally Joseph. But committee for conducting selection at the final selection was done by the CO Car Nicobar & Port Blair without any himself and Shri Joy Kumar Roy. But he change and the absence of Smti Lally failed to suggest and get appointed Joseph in no way vitiated the selections another officer in place of Smt. Lally Joseph as alleged, which were done :by the} «in the Committee charged with the task of other Committee. ,14 ' ' preparing the final list.
3. He stated that ?pn the dpsis dfjihe^ DispatchKof letter is not the duty of the CO.
;
approval accorded byjihe xompeteht, ''However.,, heiwas entrusted with the task of authority, the lettersgwas Jssbed ip ,diL- 'ieTection'candidates for admission to AITA. addresses, whom the dispaicWnigister ^Considerin'g tfie importance of the Scheme, / prima-facie proves, dhddishatilKiMdoU. J.eUi the requirement of AITA it was his his duty. ^responsibility to check whether the fetters :^vere. actuallyj received by the addresses.
Further, ini the letter No. 12- 2p/SA0/2005^382 dated 6.5.2005, he * 'alldwed only 10 days time for the authorities to conduct trail and send the ,names and he should have known that it sWill be difficult to reach the notices far off southern group of islands in 10 days time. There is also no record of notices having been sent by FAX.
3. That sending of communication to Since the CO was entrusted with the task of Principals/AEO of Hut Bay, C/Bay and selection of candidates, it was his Nancowire on his own did not arise. responsibility to send the communication to all the concerned officers and cross check with them regarding the receipt of the communication addressed them. As per the enquiry report all the witnesses who appeared before the enquiry testified that they did not receive the aforesaid letter and had no knowledge of the Scheme sponsored by AITA and therefore no selection trial was conducted at Hut Bay, Nancowrie & Campellbay. Therefore, the candidates from the worst affected tsunami area i.e. Hut Bay, Nancowrie & Campellbay could not participate in the selection trail.
4. Regarding selection of his son, he He failed to abide by the conditions of AITA / \ ■ / L / i 9 / stated that one of the criteria for to offer the scheme only to tsunami selection was to produce birth affected children, as he failed to devise a certificate to selection board; it is definiiion/condition of tsunami affected > undisputed that the selection children in the scheme prepared by him / committee has selected the candidates and got approved from the Director only after verifying the birth certificate. (SAC)/competent authority. By this act, he made the scheme open to those also who were not adversely affected by tsunami and gave them undue, unfair and unjust advantage from a scheme meant only for those who were adversely affected by tsunami. Thus, by not devising the definition of tsunami affected children, his son got an opportunity to get selected for admission to AITA. Further, he participated in the final selection process where his son was one of the candidates for admission in AITA, which was against the general principles and norms of propriety and he should have disassociated from the final selection for admission to AITA.__________ </ ? / .4 '*
8. On 25.02.2011, the Disciplinary-Authority, haying considered the matter in v- ■ -
*' * ift
*'* 'K 1 /
entirety, found that the*^appli^anb-f&i^^Jib-4ibTde byl:he\conditions of AITA to offer the scheme to on'ly Tsuna.m^'a^&eted^children, as he failed to devise a t:
definition/cohdition of-tsunami affected!chi'ldrefi in the scheme prepared by him / and got approved from the DirectorfSACl/compefent authority and by this act, he made the scheme open to those who were not adversely affected by tsunami and gave them undue, unfair and unjust advantage depriving those who were actually deserving consideration. Accordingly the Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for a period of three years without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension.
upon the applicant, as specified under rule ll(iii) a of CCS(CCA) Rules.
9. The applicant preferred an appeal on 30.03.2011 to the Ministry of Home affairs which was referred to UPSC for its advice. The Appellate Authority keeping in view all the facts and circumstances and the observations made by UPSC came to the conclusion that the Article of charges except Article-VIII framed against the / •\ i..
-1 f 10 r--V / iJ applicant vide A&N Administration's Memorandum' No.Edn-121/04-Vig. dated / / 08.11.2007 stood proved and that the ends of justice would be fully met if the :v :! • / penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, was sustained. Accordingly the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide its order dated 06.12.2013. The order dated 06.12.2013 rejecting the appeal of the applicant dated 30.03.2011, was rejected in terms of DOP&T O.Ms dated 19.11.2014 and 14.07.2016 since <• UPSCs advice was not provided to the applicant before it was acted upon.
10. On 13.06.2017, having noted that no new facts/information were brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority by the applicant, the Appellate Authority confirmed the order of the DisciRlinairy;AiJitho.rity dated 28.02.2011 imposing a penalty of 'reduction to a lower stag'efiri;^fire^t:ime scale. Of pay by one stage for a . /*'-
period of three years y^thout&hnLiiative>e^etSand hot adversely affecting his * ■; ■ pension, as specified under riaJe^ii'(iii)?a^5f',GCS-(^CA) .Rules; upon the applicant T.-/ y ■ 1 \ V ■ \ S' once gam, as evident from AnnexMej!A^2|torfhe'-M,-A.351/;l20/2018. By way of s /f ^' ^ * * + M.A.351/1003/AN/2017, the'''applicant sought fdr/stay of the order dated 13.06.2017. However, the applicant failed" to^challenge the order dated 13.06.2017 by way of a proper application.
11. In view of the fact that no grounds have been put forth, it is noted that the judicial review of disciplinary action is available on very limited grounds as decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the following decisions :
f.
(a) In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Others, (1995) 6 SCC 749/the Hon'ble Apex Court on the scope of judicial review has held as under:
i "Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the i conclusion which the. authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of J 11 u a // // the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a // // public servant, the Court/ Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the // inquiry was held by a Competent Officer or whether the inquiry was held by ' ,y' a Competent Officer or whether Rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical Rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the Disciplinary Authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal it its power of judicial review does not act as Appellate Authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the Rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory Rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence. Jf the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person woulch/hfaVe everjregched, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with me conclusion. (^he^mdintfand-rpouid the relief so as to make it appropriate i£'thefdttsPfieacfi%ase."
>■ c \ ? '
\
(b) Laying down the scope (jf jbdifci^LSr^i^w^ the Honftbl£ Apex Court in Union mT-
of India v. P. Gunasekaran, ^QlS^Z'SCGSio^i^observed as under:
/X ^ i "Despite the well^ettle^pd^i&on^itJs'^painf^ily disturbing to note that the High Court'has .acted as an Appellate'AutHority in the disciplinary proceedings, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on CbargeWVb>/.,.was acceptedPy the Disciplinary Authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second Court offirst appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
(a) the enquiry is held by a Competent Authority;
(bjthe enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting ?. the proceedings; I
(d)the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair ■ conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case."
(c) In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Others, 1989(1)SU 109 (SC)=(1987)4 SCC 611, the Hon'b le Supreme Court evolved the principle of proportionality in the following words:
5;
L..
t!
i, 12
f 1.-
i
A
H
..... \t should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and * The doctrine of amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias, v proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that 7 even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the * Court-Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial i review."
i
12. We further note that apart from the fact that UPSC advice was not given r earlier, no other procedural infirmity have been noticed in the proceedings while issuing the impugned order dated IB.06.2017. No new facts have been pleaded i by the applicant denying the fact that he himself was a member in the Committee r.
f which selected candidates other^than 'geri'Uintyi'tsunami affected victims in terms of AITA instructions and in; fact^lTe'faglitate'ci%;he selection of his own son as a tsunami victim. Therefore, we'find-.nd^xtenuatihg circumstances which would tempt us to interfere with the punishmeht'irhpbseld on the applicant, which in our '• v / ; \ \ >.-■ . ( considered opinion is not shdCWngly (ili^bybrjiibnatb-to the proven charge.
7'
13. Accordingly the O.A. is^djsmissed^ GonseGpjenfiy the M.A.No.1003/2017 f and M.A.No.120/2018 also stand dismissed.' No costs.
Wim {Dr. Nandita cfiatterjee) ■ i'XrrWd (Bidisha Barferjee) I Administrative Member Judicial Member sb r-
JP
--/