S.R. Tewari vs. Union of India & Anr. Civil Appeal No. 4715-4716 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C)
NOs.22263-22264 of 2012), Decided on May 28, 2013
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“The court
can exercise the power of judicial review if there is a manifest error in the
exercise of power or the exercise of power is manifestly arbitrary or if the
power is exercised on the basis of facts which do not exist and which are
patently erroneous. Such exercise of power would stand vitiated. The court may
be justified in exercising the power of judicial review if the impugned order
suffers from mala fide, dishonest or corrupt practices, for the reason, that
the order had been passed by the authority beyond the limits conferred upon the
authority by the legislature. Thus, the court has to be satisfied that the order
had been passed by the authority only on the grounds of illegality, irrationality
and procedural impropriety before it interferes. The court does not have the
expertise to correct the administrative decision. Therefore, the court itself
may be fallible and interfering with the order of the authority may impose
heavy administrative burden on the State or may lead to unbudgeted expenditure”.
[Para 14]
“There may be
a case where the holders of public offices have forgotten that the offices
entrusted to them are a sacred trust and such offices are meant for use and not
abuse. Where such trustees turn to dishonest means to gain an undue advantage,
the scope of judicial review attains paramount importance”. [Para 16]
The
court referred following case laws:
Commissioner
of Income-tax, Bombay & Ors. v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1182, where the SC held
that various parameters of the court’s power of judicial review of administrative
or executive action on which the court can interfere had been well settled and
it would be redundant to recapitulate the whole catena of decisions. The Court
further held:
“It is a settled position that if the action or
decision is perverse or is such that no reasonable body of persons, properly
informed, could come to, or has been arrived at by the authority misdirecting
itself by adopting a wrong approach, or has been influenced by irrelevant or extraneous
matters the court would be justified in interfering with the same.”
Air
India Ltd. v. Cochin International Airport Ltd. & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 801, the Supreme Court
explaining the scope of judicial review held that the court must act with
great caution and should exercise such power only in furtherance to
public interest and not merely on the making out of a legal point. The court must
always keep the larger public interest in mind in order to decide whether its
intervention is called for or not.
On Re-appreciating the evidence,
The court held:
“The court must keep in mind that judicial review
is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an
appellate authority. Thus, the court is devoid of the power to re-appreciate
the evidence and come to its own conclusion on the proof of a particular charge,
as the scope of judicial review is limited to the process of making the
decision and not against the decision itself and in such a situation the court
cannot arrive on its own independent finding.[Para 17]
The court also held:
“..where there is evidence of malpractice, gross
irregularity or illegality, interference is permissible”.
The
court also noted following case laws:
High
Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar v. Udaysingh s/o Ganpatrao
Naik Nimbalkar & Ors., AIR 1997 SC 2286
Government
of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, AIR 2006 SC 1214
Union
of India & Ors. v. Manab Kumar Guha, (2011) 11 SCC 535
Krishan
Yadav & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 2166
Tata
Cellular v. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 11
People’s
Union for Civil Liberties & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2004 SC 456
State
of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr. v. Sanjeev alias Bittoo, AIR 2005
SC 2080
On Interference to the quantum of
punishment, the court held:
“The question
of interference on the quantum of punishment, has been considered by this Court
in a catena of judgments, and it was held that if the punishment awarded is
disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it would be arbitrary, and
thus, would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution”.[Para
18]
“The role of
the court in the matter of departmental proceedings is very limited and the
court cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings
arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record.
In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference by the
court is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment imposed
by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the
conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review. The court has
to record reasons as to why the punishment is disproportionate. Failure to give
reasons amounts to denial of justice. The mere statement that it is
disproportionate would not suffice”. [Para 22]
The
court also referred following case laws:
Ranjit
Thakur v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 2386, the SC observed as under:
“But the sentence has to suit the offence and the
offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should
not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount
in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept
of judicial review, would ensure that even on the 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.
B.C.
Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1996 SC 484, the Supreme Court after examining
various its earlier decisions observed that in exercise of the powers of
judicial review, the court cannot “normally” substitute its own conclusion or
penalty. However, if the penalty imposed by an authority “shocks the
conscience” of the court, it would appropriately mould the relief either
directing the authority to reconsider the penalty imposed and in exceptional
and rare cases, in order to shorten the litigation, itself, impose appropriate
punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. While examining the issue of
proportionality, court can also consider the
circumstances under which
the misconduct was committed. In a given case, the prevailing circumstances might have forced the
accused to act in a certain manner though he had not intended to do so. The
court may further examine the effect, if the order is set aside or substituted
by some other penalty. However, it is only in very rare cases that the court
might, to shorten the litigation, think of substituting its own view as to the
quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the Competent
Authority.
V.
Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C. & Ors., AIR 2005 SC 3417, The Supreme Court considered
the scope of judicial review as to the quantum of punishment is permissible
only if it is found that it is not commensurate with the gravity of the charges and if the
court comes to the conclusion
that the scope of judicial review
as to the quantum of punishment is permissible only if it is found to be
“shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance
of logic or moral standards.” In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary
Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. However, in order to shorten the
litigation, in exceptional and rare cases, the Court itself can impose appropriate punishment
by recording cogent reasons
in support thereof.
State
of Meghalaya & Ors. v. Mecken Singh N. Marak, AIR 2008 SC 2862, the Supreme Court observed that
a Court or a Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to
record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment is not commensurate
with the proved charges. In the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for
interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases. The punishment
imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocks
the conscience of the court, cannot be subjected to judicial review.
The
court also noted following cases:
Depot
Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. P. Jayaram Reddy, (2009) 2 SCC 681
Union
of India & Anr. v. G. Ganayutham (dead by Lrs.), AIR 1997 SC 3387
State
of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. v. J.P. Saraswat, (2011) 4 SCC 545
Chandra
Kumar Chopra v. Union of India
& Ors., (2012) 6
SCC 369
Registrar
General, Patna High
Court v. Pandey Gajendra Prasad & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 2319
Union
of India & Ors. v. Bodupalli Gopalaswami, (2011) 13 SCC 553
Sanjay
Kumar Singh v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2012 SC 1783
To see full text follow the link: