AMARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 12 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 14-07-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
AMARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 11473-11474 of 2018)
JULY 14, 2022
[SURYA KANT AND J. B. PARDIWALA, JJ.]
Service Law: Armed forces – Discharge from service –
Appellant was discharged from service on the basis of four Red-Ink
entries received by him during his period of service – Writ petition
filed by him challenging order of discharge – Single judge relied
upon the judgment in Balwant Singh wherein similar issue was
involved regarding discharge from Assam Rifles on securing four
Red-Ink entries – In that case, it was held that the authority vested
with the power to discharge must examine the response of the
concerned person and weigh the same vis-a-vis the severity of the
misconduct which led to incurring of the Red-Ink entries in the service
rolls; and that the order of discharge and the procedure preceding
such discharge being of summary nature, it is necessary that the
order of discharge is a speaking order – Relying on the said
judgment, Single Judge set aside the order of discharge and remitted
matter to competent authority for fresh decision – However, Division
Bench set aside the order passed by Single Judge on the ground
that neither the Assam Rifles Act, 1941 nor the Assam Rifles Act,
2006 requires the authority to record any reasons or satisfaction in
the order of discharge itself – On appeal, held: Where there are no
reasonable grounds for formation of the authority’s opinion, judicial
review in such a case is permissible – There is nothing on record to
indicate that the nature of the misconduct leading to the award of
four Red Ink entries was so unacceptable that the competent
authority had no option but to direct his discharge to prevent
indiscipline in the force – Therefore, to do substantial justice, order
of discharge is set aside and appellant is treated to have been in
service till the time, he could be said to have completed the
qualifying service for grant of pension – Assam Rifles Act, 1941 –
Assam Rifles Act, 2006 – Assam Rifles Regulation, 2016 – Regns.107
and 108.
[2022] 12 S.C.R. 223
223
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 12 S.C.R.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Where an Act or the statutory rules framed
thereunder left an action dependent upon the opinion of the
authority concerned, by some such expression as ‘is satisfied’ or
‘is of the opinion’ or ‘if it has reason to believe’ or ‘if it considered
necessary’, the opinion of the authority is conclusive, (a) if the
procedure prescribed by the Act or rules for formation of the
opinion was duly followed, (b) if the authority acted bona fide, (c)
if the authority itself formed the opinion and did not borrow the
opinion of somebody else and (d) if the authority did not proceed
on a fundamental misconception of the law and the matter in regard
to which the opinion had to be formed. The action based on the
subjective opinion or satisfaction, can judicially be reviewed first
to find out the existence of the facts or circumstances on the
basis of which the authority is alleged to have formed the opinion.
It is true that ordinarily the court should not inquire into the
correctness or otherwise of the facts found except in a case where
it is alleged that the facts which have been found existing were
not supported by any evidence at all or that the finding in regard
to circumstances or material is so perverse that no reasonable
man would say that the facts and circumstances exist. The courts
will not readily defer to the conclusiveness of the authority’s
opinion as to the existence of matter of law or fact upon which the
validity of the exercise of the power is predicated. The doctrine
of reasonableness thus may be invoked. Where there are no
reasonable grounds for the formation of the authority’s opinion,
judicial review in such a case is permissible. [Para 28-30][239-E-
H; 240-A-C]
2. When this Court say that where the circumstances or
material or state of affairs does not at all exist to form an opinion
and the action based on such opinion can be quashed by the courts,
this Court means that in effect there is no evidence whatsoever
to form or support the opinion. The distinction between
insufficiency or inadequacy of evidence and no evidence must of
course be borne in mind. A finding based on no evidence as
opposed to a finding which is merely against the weight of the
evidence is an abuse of the power which courts naturally are loath
to tolerate. Whether or not there is 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.