Important point
There should be judicial restraint while making judicial review in administrative matters.

Headnote:Air Force Order No. 79/73—Suspension of respondent from training i.e. "Struck Off Ration Strength" because of his failure in academics and for maintaining low standard of discipline—Writ—High Court set aside the order directing respondent to be commissioned—Appeal—Judicial review in administrative matters—Duty of Court—High Court seemed to have ignored relevant aspects and emphasized on irrelevant issues—Review Boards on three occasions considered relevant factors regarding academic performance of respondent and disciplinary cases and termination of training was recommended—Warning letters issued to respondent showed that he failed to secure requisite pass percentage—In the confidential recommendation of latter Training Review Board various acts of misconduct were noticed and termination of training was recommended—High Court did not keep in view principles governing judicial review and acted on surmises and conjectures—Impugned judgment was unsustainable and liable to be quashed.
       Held : There should be judicial restraint while making judicial review in administrative matters. Where irrelevant aspects have been eschewed from consideration and no relevant aspect has been ignored and the administrative decisions have nexus with the facts on record, there is no scope for interference. The duty of the court is (a) to confine itself to the question of legality; (b) to decide whether the decision making authority exceeded its powers (c) committed an error of law (d) committed breach of the rules of natural justice and (e) reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached or (f) abused its powers. Administrative action is subject to control by judicial review in the following manner:
       (i) Illegality: This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it.
       (ii) Irrationality namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness.
       (iii) Procedural impropriety.
       In the instant case the High Court seems to have ignored the relevant aspects and emphasized on irrelevant issues. There were Review Boards on three occasions at Air Force academy where the relevant factors regarding the academic performance of the respondent as well as the disciplinary cases were considered and termination of training was recommended. The training termination proceedings were forwarded to the Air Headquarters as well as the Government of India which duly approved the same. That itself shows that there was no mala-fides involved. (Paras 6 and 7)
       The warning letters issued to the respondent show that he had failed to secure the requisite pass percentage and he was advised guidance and additional coaching. In the final examinations he had failed in two various subjects. In the confidential recommendation of the latter Training Review Board dated 29.5.2000 various acts of misconduct were noticed and that is why it was recommended that his training be terminated. Though the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondent was not given adequate opportunity to defend him, from the copies of the proceedings which were filed, we find the plea to be without substance. Opportunity for cross-examination while making submissions affirmative statements was given. Several Training Review Boards were held to look into the questions of indiscipline and the failure in academics. This amply proves that adequate opportunity was granted to the respondent to explain his position. The High Court did not keep in view the principles governing judicial review and acted on surmises and conjectures, and quashed the orders passed by the authorities. (Para 18)

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—Union of India and its functionaries calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court holding that the learned Single Judge was right in quashing the orders dated 16.6.2000 and 27.6.2000, and further directing appellants to allow the respondent to complete training from the stage he had left and to act in terms of the instructions of the Headquarters, Indian Air Force as regards re-testing.

2. Factual background in a nutshell as highlighted by the appellants is as follows:-

The respondent was selected as a Flight Cadet to undergo training to become a pilot in the Indian Air Force (in short ‘Air Force). The concerned course for being commissioned as pilot officer was course No. 157 which covered a period of 72 weeks. It commenced on 5.2.1995. During training the respondent complained of knee injury which was sustained prior to training on 28.12.1994 due to a road accident. Since he remained absent during the course, it was felt that he could not be continued in the pilot course, flying training was terminated and he was given option of joining Ab-initio Navigator’s course which the respondent accepted and joined in January 1998. The course was 86 Ab-initio Navigator’s course. In November 1998, he was found to be lagging behind in the studies and the training was terminated. Further option was given to join Ground Duty Officer’s course which the respondent opted to join and, in fact, in July 1999 joined as a trainee in the Administrative branch which was to be held at Air Force Academy in Ground Duty Officer’s Course No. 106. During such training the authorities came to know various acts of misconduct on the part of the respondent. A Court of Inquiry was conducted where the respondent admitted the aberrations. A warning was given in November 1999. As he failed in three academic subjects, a Training Review Board was formed and its opinion was forwarded to the Headquarter for processing with the Central Government. He was suspended from training on 1.2.2000 which in Air Force terminology is called "Struck Off Ration Strength". He was "routed home" pending final approval. Respondent filed a writ petition on 1.2.2000 before the Allahabad High Court challenging suspension of training where interim order was passed allowing the respondent to continue training. The respondent was directed to resume duty on 11.3.2000 whereas he actually reported for duty on 13.3.2000. On 11.3.2000 he was again involved in drunken brawl outside the Academy and was arrested and sent to policy custody. On 22.3.2000 the case was compounded by a Magistrate. On 2.4.2000 the Duty Officer of the Air Force Academy visited the trainees’ mess and found the respondent smelling of liquor. On 12/13.5.2000 the respondent in a drunken condition physically assaulted co-trainees, used abusive language and terrorized a large number of trainees by his violent behavior. On 12.6.2000 he was involved in another criminal case in having misused credit card of the other Cadets. First information report was lodged, cognizance was taken and warrants were issued. Since he failed in final examination he was assessed to be unsuitable for further training by the Review Board on 29.5.2000 and on 14.6.2000 his training was terminated because of his failure in academics and for maintaining low standard of discipline. The report was forwarded to the Air Force Headquarters, he was "routed home" and order of termination of Cadetship was passed.

3. Another writ petition was filed before the High Court challenging termination of training. Both the writ petitions were heard together and by order dated 25.5.2001 the learned Single Judge allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the orders dated 16.6.2000 and 27.6.2000. Writ appeals filed by the present appellants were dismissed with the directions as afore-noted. Learned Single Judge has directed that the respondent be commissioned. By order dated 16.1.2003 the judgmen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 49

Important pointThere should be judicial restraint while making judicial review in administrative matters.

Important point
There should be judicial restraint while making judicial review in administrative matters.