UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER versus G. GANAYUTHAM (DEAD) BY LRS.

Citation: [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 549 · Decided: 27-08-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-\ 
UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER 
v. 
G. GANA YUTHAM (DEAD) BY LRS. 
AUGUST 27, 1997 
[SUJATA V. MAHOHAR AND 
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.] 
Administrative Law : 
A 
B 
Judicial Review-Ground fo1~Held, 'reasonableness' and 'rationality' C 
are grounds for judicial review-Doctrine of 'proportionality'--Held, can also 
· be invoked where the court is examining whether the restrictions on fun-
damental freedoms imposed by a statute are within the constitutional 
limits-Question however left open whether the doctrine of proportionality 
could be applied to administrative or executive actions affecting fundamental 
freedoms and if it applies, whether the court would perf onn the 'primary' or D 
secondary role-Tests for detennining 'reasonableness', 'rationality' and 
'proportionality' indicated. 
Doctrines: 
Doctrine of Proportionality- Nature and scope of-Position in India E 
and England discussed. 
\ 
Judicial review-Scope of-'Margin of appreciation' and administrative 
authority-Discussed. 
Service Law : 
Departmental enquiry-Punishment-Judicial review-Scope of-
Retiral benefits---Gratuity-Withholding of pursuant to a departmental in-
quiry-Held, valid under Rule 9(1) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. 
Words and Phrases : 
'Reasonableness', 'rationality' and 'proportionality'-Meaning of-ln 
the context of judicial review of administrative action. 
The respondent, an Excise Superintendent, was served with a memo 
F 
G 
of eight charges and inquiry was conducted. Out of eight, six charges were H 
549 
550 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A proved and one charge was partly proved. Thereafter, under Rule 9 of the 
Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules 50% of pension and 50% of gratuity 
were withheld on proof.II( his misconduct. A writ petition was filed by the 
respondent challenging the "same, which was transferred to the Tribunal. 
The Tribunal held that under Rule 9 only pension and gratuity could have 
B been withheld and on the question of withholding of 50% pension the 
Tribunal held that punishment awarded was too severe and directed that 
withholding of pension could be restricted to 10 years and not on per· 
manent basis. Hence this appeal by the Union of India. 
c 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. While examining 'reasonableness' of an administrative 
decision the Court has to find out if the administrator has left out relevant 
factors or taken into account irrelevant factors. The decision of the ad· 
ministrator must have been within the four corners of the law, and not one 
which no sensible person could have reasonably arrived at having regard 
D to the above principles and must have been a bona fide one. The decision 
could be one of many choices open to the authority but it was for that 
authority to decide upon the choice and not for the Court to substitute its 
view. [559-D"E] 
E 
Associated Provincial Picture House Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, 
(1948) 1 K.B. 223, referred to. 
F 
1.2. To characterise an administrator's decision as 'irrational' the 
Court has to hold, on material, that it is a decision so outrageous as to be 
in total defiance of logic or moral standard. [560-D] 
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil Service, (1985) 1. 
AC 374, referred to. 
Tata Cellular v. Union of India, [1994) 6 SCC 651, referred to. 
G 
R. v. Goldstein, (1983) 1WLR151 and R. v. Secretary for Home Dept. 
Ext. Brind, (1991) 1 AC 696, referred to. 
2.1. In India the role of Courts/Tribunal is purely secondary in cases 
not involving fundamental freedoms. While applying Wednesbury As-
sociated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation, (1948) 1 
H KB 223 and CCSU Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for Civil 
U.O.I. v. G. GANA YUTIIAM 
551 
Service, (1985) 1 AC 374 principles to test the validity of executive action A 
or of administrative action taken in exercise of statutory powers, the Court 
and the Tribunal in India can only go into the matter, as a secondary 
reviewing Court to find out if the executive or the administrator in their 
primary roles have arrived at a reasonable decision on the material before 
them in the light of Wednesbury and CCS U tests. The choice of the options B 
available is for the authority, the Court/Tribunal cannot substitute its view 
as to what is reasonable. [566-8-C] 
2.2. In England, it has been accepted that the English Courts could 
apply 'proportionality' if the European Human Rights Convention were 
incorporated into English l

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