Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.57 seconds)Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Union Of India & Another vs G. Ganayutham on 27 August, 1997
23 In Om Kumar Vs. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3689, the
Supreme Court traced the history of the principle of
proportionality, referred to the propositions culled out in Union
of India v. C. G. Ganayutham's case [AIR 197 SC 3387], noticed the
decision of the House of Lords in R. Vs. Chief Constable of Sussesc
ex.p. International Trader's Ferry Ltd. (1999) 1 All ER 129, wherein
the principles of Wednesbury and proportionality were almost equated
and held that where the decision of an administrative authority is
attacked being arbitrary, the principle of secondary review will
have to be kept in mind. Paragraphs 28, 29 66 to 71 of this
judgement which theortises the law on the subject are reproduced
below:
State Of Orissa vs Bidyabhujshan Mohapatra on 19 October, 1962
17. The next question is whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering
with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. A Constitution
Bench of this Court in State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra held
that having regard to the gravity of the established misconduct, the
punishing authority had the power and jurisdiction to impose punishment.
The penalty was not open to review by the High Court under Article 226. If
the High Court reached a finding that there was some evidence to reach
the conclusion, it became unassessable. The order of the Governor who had
jurisdiction and unrestricted power to determine the appropriate
punishment was final. The High Court had no jurisdiction to direct the
Governor to review the penalty. It was further held that if the order was
supported on any finding as to substantial misconduct for which
punishment "can lawfully be imposed", it was not for the Court to consider
whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in
dismissing the public servant. The Court had no jurisdiction, if the findings
prima facie made out a case of misconduct, to direct the Governor to
reconsider the order of penalty.
Union Of India vs Sardar Bahadur on 29 October, 1971
This view was reiterated in Union of India
v. Sardar Bahadur.
Bhagat Ram vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Ors. on 24 January, 1983
It is true that in Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal
Pradesh, a Bench of two Judge of this Court, while holding that the High
Court did not function as a court of appeal, concluded that when the
finding was utterly perverse, the High Court could always interfere with
the same. In that case, the finding was that the appellant was to supervise
felling of the trees which were not hammer marked. The Government had
Page 9 of 17
HC-NIC Page 9 of 17 Created On Tue Apr 19 00:10:14 IST 2016
C/SCA/10232/2014 JUDGMENT
recovered from the contractor the loss caused to it by illicit felling of trees.
Under those circumstances, this Court held that the finding of guilt was
perverse and unsupported by evidence. The ratio, therefore, is not an
authority to conclude that in every case the Court/Tribunal is empowered
to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
Rangaswami vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 8 March, 1989
In
Rangaswami v. State of Tamil Nadu, a Bench of three Judges of this Court,
while considering the power to interfere with the order of punishment, held
that this Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
Constitution, is empowered to alter or interfere with the penalty; and the
Tribunal had no power to substitute its own discretion for that of the
authority. It would be seen that this Court did not appear to have intended
to lay down that in no case, the High Court/Tribunal has the power to
alter the penalty imposed by the disciplinary or the appellate authority.
The controversy was again canvassed in State Bank of India's case, where
the Court elaborately reviewed the case law on the scope of judicial review
and powers of the Tribunal in disciplinary matters and nature of
punishment. On the facts in that case, since the appellate authority had
not adverted to the relevant facts, it was remitted to the appellate
authority to impose appropriate punishment.
Apparel Export Promotion Council vs A.K. Chopra on 20 January, 1999
22 In Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. A.K. Chopra
(1999) 1 SCC 759, the Supreme Court reiterated the otherwise well
settled principles of law on the scope of judicial review of disciplinary
action taken by the employer and laid down the following propositions:
"It is a settled position that in departmental proceedings, the
disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts and in case an appeal
is presented to the appellate authority, the appellate authority has
also the power/and jurisdiction to reappreciate the evidence and
come to its own conclusion, on facts, being the sole factfinding
authorities. Once findings of fact, based on appreciation of evidence
are recorded, the High Court in writ jurisdiction may not normally
interfere with those factual findings unless it finds that the
recorded findings were based either on no evidence or that the findings
were wholly perverse and/or legally untenable. The adequacy or
inadequacy of the evidence is not permitted to be canvassed before the
High Court. Since the High Court does not sit as an appellate authority
over the factual findings recorded during departmental
proceedings, while exercising the power of judicial review, the High
Court cannot, normally speaking, substitute its own conclusion, with
regard to the guilt of the delinquent, for that of the departmental
authorities. Even in so far as imposition of penalty or punishment
is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the
disciplinary or the departmental appellate authority, is either
impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it
should not normally substitute its own opinion and impose some other
Page 12 of 17
HC-NIC Page 12 of 17 Created On Tue Apr 19 00:10:14 IST 2016
C/SCA/10232/2014 JUDGMENT
punishment or penalty.
Om Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2000
23 In Om Kumar Vs. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 3689, the
Supreme Court traced the history of the principle of
proportionality, referred to the propositions culled out in Union
of India v. C. G. Ganayutham's case [AIR 197 SC 3387], noticed the
decision of the House of Lords in R. Vs. Chief Constable of Sussesc
ex.p. International Trader's Ferry Ltd. (1999) 1 All ER 129, wherein
the principles of Wednesbury and proportionality were almost equated
and held that where the decision of an administrative authority is
attacked being arbitrary, the principle of secondary review will
have to be kept in mind. Paragraphs 28, 29 66 to 71 of this
judgement which theortises the law on the subject are reproduced
below:
G.B. Mahajan And Ors vs Jalgaon Municipal Council And Ors on 13 September, 1990
"67. But where, an administrative action is challenged as
'arbitrary' under Art. 14 on the basis of Royappa (as in cases where
punishments in disciplinary cases are challenged), the question will be
whether the administrative order is 'rational' or 'reasonable' and the test
then is the Wednesbury test. The Courts would then be confined only to a
secondary role and will only have to see whether the Administrator has
done well in his primary role, whether he has acted illegally or has
omitted relevant factors from consideration or has taken irrelevant
factors into consideration or whether his view is one which no reasonable
person could have taken. If his action does not satisfy these rules, it is
Page 14 of 17
HC-NIC Page 14 of 17 Created On Tue Apr 19 00:10:14 IST 2016
C/SCA/10232/2014 JUDGMENT
to be treated as arbitrary. (In G.B. Mahajan V. Jalgaon Municipal
Council (1991) 3 SCC 91 at p. 111 :(AIR 1991 SC 1153 at 1165),
Venkatachaliah, J. (as he then was) pointed out that 'reasonableness' of
the Administrator under Art. 14 in the context of Administrative Law has
to be judged from the stand point of Wednesbury rules.