UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. versus K.G.SONI

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 560 · Decided: 17-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
K.G.SONI 
AUGUST 17, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASA YAT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.) 
Service law: 
Misconduct-Compulsory retirement-Quantum of punishment-
C Interference by High Court-Propriety of-Central Government employee 
did not fill his wife's name in al/estation form-later married another woman 
during subsistence of his first marriage-Disciplinary authority imposed 
penalty of removal from service-Appellate authority converted the punishment 
into one of compulsory retirement--Central Administrative Tribunal declined 
D to interfere--High Court in writ jurisdiction remilled the matter to the appellate 
authority for reconsideration as regards quantum of punishment-Held. unless 
the punishment imposed by disciplinary authority or appellate authority 
shocks the conscience of the court. there is no scope for interference-High 
Court has not even indicated as why the punishment was considered 
disproportionate and why it considered the misconduct to be not serious-· 
E Judgment of High Court set aside and that of appellate authority restored-
Central Civil Services (Clarification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. 
F 
Administrative law: 
Orders of administrative authorities-Judicial review of-Scope of 
Respondent was an employee in the Bank Note Press. A departmental 
inquiry under the Central Civil Services (Clarification, Control and Appeal) 
Rules, 1965, was initiated against him for the misconduct on the allegation 
that he did not disclose the name of his wife in the attestation form and later 
G married another woman during the subsistence of his first marriage. Though 
the Inquiry Officer recorded findings in favour of the respondent, the 
disciplinary authority held him guilty of misconduct and imposed punishment 
of removal from service. The appellate authority converted the punishment of 
removal into one of r.ompulsory retirement. The Central Administrative 
Tribunal declined to interfere. The respondent filed a writ petition before the 
H 
5~ 
U.O .I. v. K.G. SONI 
561 
High Court, which remitted the matter to the appellate authority for A 
reconsideration with regard to quantum of punishment Aggrieved, the Union 
of India filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. On the scope of judicial review of the orders of B 
administrative authorities, the judicial pronouncements are to the effect that 
the Court should not interfere with administrator's decision unless it was 
illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the 
conscience of the court in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral 
standards. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision- C 
making process and not the decision. Further, to shorten litigations it may, 
in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording 
cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment 
imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the 
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority to reconsider the penalty 
imposed. 1565-G-H; 566-A-CI 
D 
Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Ors. v. Munna Lal Jain, 
12005) 10 SCC 84; Union of India and Anr. v. G. Ganayutham, 11997) 7 SCC 
463 and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors., 1199516 SCC 749, relied 
on. 
1.2. In the instant case, the High Court has not kept the correct position 
in view. It has not even indicated as to why the punishment was considered 
disproportionate and why it considered the misconduct to be not serious. The 
order of the High Court is set aside and that of the appellate authority is 
restored. (566-D-E) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3528 of2006. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.12.2003 of the High Court of 
Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 2106/2003. 
E 
F 
Vikas Singh, A.S.G., Arijit Prasad, P.Parmeswaran and B.V. Balaram Das G 
for the Appellants. 
Chinmoy Pradip Sharma and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
562 
SUPREME COURf RF.PORTS [2006] Sl!PP. 4 S.C.R. 
A 
ARIJIT PASA VAT, J. Leave granted. 
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division 
Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur holding that the 
punishment of compulsory retirement imposed on the respondent was 
disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Therefore. the Appellate Authority 
B was directed to consider the matter afresh 

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