LexSR. TEWARI versus UNION OF INDIA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013] 8 S.C.R. 988 SR. TEWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No.4715-4716 of 2013) MAY 28, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] Service Law: c Quantum of punishment - Judicial review of - Permissibility - Held: If the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it would be arbitrary and thus violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution - If the penalty imposed by the authority. shocks the conscience 0 of the Court, it can substitute its own penalty - In the facts of the present case, the punishment of compulsory retirement on the delinquent officer shocks the conscience of the Court as it does not commensurate with the offence of misconduct whi<;h was not of a serious nature - Hence the punishment E imposed is substituted to punishment of withholding of two increments for one year without having cumulative effect. Judicial Review - Scope of - Court can exercise power of judicial review, if the impugned order suffers from malafide, dishonest or corrupt practices - Court does not have F expertise to correct administrative decision - Court should exercise such power in furtherance of public interest and not merely on making out of a legal point - Scope of judicial review is limited to the process of making the decision and G H not against the decision itself. Appellant-an IPS officer, when posted on deputation with Border Security Force (BSF), disciplinary proceedings were initiated a!Jainst him. Eight charges were framed against him. Inquiry Officer, in its report 988 S.R. TEWARI v. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. 989 stated that charge No. 3 was fully proved, charge Nos. 4 A and 6 were partially proved while rest of the charges were not proved. Disciplinary Authority passed the order of punishment of dismissal from service. Administrative Tribunal directed his reinstatement. High Court, however, .set aside the judgment of the Tribunal holding that only B charge Nos. 4 and 6 stood proved, and hence directed Union of India to pass fresh orders in respect of those charges. Review petition of the appellant was dismissed by High Court. During pendency of the present appeal, Union of C India, having lost its appeal in this Court, against the order of the High Court, reinstated the appellant and imposed a penalty of withholding two increments for one year without cumulative effect. But on the advice of UPSC, imposed punishment of compulsory retirement. D This Court asked the appellant to make representation and asked Union of India to decide the same and to place it before this Court before giving effect to it. Union of India, after considering the representation, imposed punishment of compulsory retirement and also gave E effect to the order rather than placing it before this Court. Appellant filed contempt petition. The question for consideration, therefore, was whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was F proportionate to the delinquency proved; and whether Union of India wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court directing it not to give effect to the punishment order immediately and to place the same before the Court. Disposing of the appeal and the contempt petition, G the Court HELD: 1.1. 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 H 990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 8 S.C.R. ·A 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 ma/a fide, dishonest or B 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 c 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 0 unbudgeted expenditure. [Para 14] [1005-F-H; 1006-A-B] Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay and Ors. v. Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. and Ors. AIR 1984 SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.