Back
2008 Supreme(SC) 1144
2008(5) Supreme 397
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Altamas Kabir and Markandey Katju, JJ.
Anil Mishra — Petitioner
versus
Union of India & Ors. — Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4724 of 2008
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 13030 of 2006]
Decided on : 30-07-08
Important Point
The scope of judicial review of administrative orders is limited.
Headnote:Service law – Representation made by appellant a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Central Government challenging the adverse entry made to him for year 2000-01 – Rejected by Chief Commissioner – Against said order of Chief commissioner, appellant made further representation to Central Government, which was rejected by Competent Authority of Central Government – Application thereagainst before Tribunal – Plea of appellant that adverse entry had been made malafide – However Tribunal rejected OA of appellant – Writ petition thereagainst – Dismissed by High Court – No reason to interfere with orders of High Court or Tribunal – Held this was not a case where adverse entry was not communicated to the appellant – It was not only communicated but appellant made representation against the adverse entry, which was considered by Chief Commissioner, who rejected the representation by a detailed speaking order – Further memorial to Central Government had also been considered and dismissed – Thus three senior officers had considered appellant’s case and rejected the same – This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over these orders – The scope of judicial review of administrative orders is limited – Chief Commissioner and Central Government are very high authorities and they had considered representations of appellant – No bias had been attributed to Chief Commissioner or to Central Government – Again appellant submitted that entries before 2000 and after 2000 were not adverse to the appellant, and hence isolated entry for 2000 appeared to be biased – However since this plea was not taken by appellant before Tribunal or High Court – Hence this plea could not be allowed to be taken for the first time – Appeal having no merit dismissed. (Paras 7 to 12)
AIR 1996 SC 11 – Relied upon.
Facts of the Case :
Issue in consideration in present case was regarding challenge made by appellant a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Central Government. against an adverse entry made to him for year 2000-01.
Findings of the Court :
Held this was not a case where adverse entry was not communicated to the appellant. It was not only communicated but appellant had made representation against adverse entry, which was considered by Chief Commissioner, who rejected representation by a detailed speaking order. Further memorial to Central Government had also been considered and dismissed. Thus three senior officers had considered appellant’s case and rejected the same. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over these orders.The scope of judicial review of administrative orders is limited. Chief Commissioner and Central Government are very high authorities and they had considered representations of appellant. No bias had been attributed to Chief Commissioner or to Central Government. Again appellant submitted that entries before 2000 and after 2000 were not adverse to the appellant, and hence isolated entry for 2000 appeared to be biased. However since this plea was not taken by appellant before Tribunal or High Court. Hence this plea could not be allowed to be taken for the first time. Appeal having no merit was dismissed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgment
Markandey Katju, J. —
1.Leave granted.
2.This appeal by special leave has been filed against the Judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 6.3.2006 in C.W.P. No.3526 of 2006.
3.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
4.The appellant Anil Mishra was a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, Central Government. He filed an O.A. before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, challenging the adverse entry made to him for the year 2000-01 vide letter dated 16.1.2002.
5.Against that adverse entry he had earlier filed a representation which was rejected by the Chief Commissioner by Order dated 14.7.2003. Against the Order of the Chief Commissioner, the appellant made further representation to the Central Government, which was rejected by the Competent Authority of the Central Government, which has been conveyed by the Under Secretary to the Government of India by his letter dated 30.9.2004.
5.Before the Tribunal the appellant submitted that the adverse entry had been made malafide. This fact had been considered by the Tribunal in para 9 of its Order and the Tribunal observed that the appellant had not brought to its notice any extraneous factor or reason as to why the concerned authority should have acted in a malafide manner. Moreover, the appellant’s representation against that adverse entry was rejected by the Chief Commissioner, and his further representation to the Central Government was also rejected. Hence the Tribunal rejected the OA of the appellant.
6.Against the Order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court noted that the plea of bias had been considered by the Tribunal after an examination of the files and was rejected. The High Court also observed that the appellant’s representation was rejected by the Chief Commissioner, who was a very senior officer, after seeing the record of the appellant, and the memorial filed by the appellant was also rejected vide Order dated 30.9.2004.
7.We have perused the record and heard the learned counsel for the parties, and we see no reason to interfere with the Orders of the High Court or the Tribunal. This is not a case where the adverse entry was not communicated to the appellant. It was not only communicated but the appellant made representation against the adverse entry, which was considered by the Chief Commissioner, who rejected the representation by a detailed speaking Order of 5 pages. Further memorial to the Central Government has also been considered and dismissed. Thus three senior officers have considered the appellant’s case and rejected the same. We cannot sit as an appellate authority over these Orders. The scope of judicial review of administrative Orders is limited as has been repeatedly held by this Court, vide Tata Cellular vs. Union of India,1 AIR 1996 SC 11.
8.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the entries before 2000 and after 2000 were not adverse to the appellant, and hence the isolated entry for 2000 appears to be biased. This plea was not taken by the appellant before the Tribunal or the High Court, and hence we cannot allow it to be taken for the first time before us. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was not aware of the good entries before and after the year 2000, and hence the appellant could not bring it to the notice of the Tribunal and the High Court. He also submitted that the entries before the year 2000 and after the year 2000 are good entries, and this shows that the isolated entry in the year 2000 was for extraneous considerations.
9.We are of the opinion that if the appellant wanted to take this plea, he could have done it before the Tribunal or the High Court. Even if the entries before or after 2000 had not been communicated to him, he could have filed an application before the Tribunal or the High Court for summoning of these entries, and the Tribunal and the High Court coul
