Important points
1. The question of the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or other of the well known principles known as Wednesbury principles.
2. When administrative action is attacked as discriminatory under Article 14, the principle of primary review is for the Courts by applying proportionality. However, where administrative action is questioned as ‘arbitrary’ under Article 14, the principle of secondary review based on Wednesbury principles applies .

Headnote:(i) Service Law—Disciplinary action—Quantum of punishment—Officials involved in Skipper Construction case—Supreme Court’s order proposing to reopen quantum of punishment—Application of principles of Wednesbury—On facts, no relevant facts omitted nor irrelevant facts taken into account—No illegality nor punishment of censure shockingly disproportionate—Punishment imposed by administrative authority not violative of Wednesbury rules—No interference with decision of administrative authorities—No action required for further upward revision of punishment. (Paras 68 to 74)
       (ii) Administrative Law—Principles of Wednesbury reasonableness—Principles of proportionality—Principles of primary review—Principles of secondary review—Recent development in western countries—Application of proper principles—Application of proportionality and administrative action in India—Proportionality test, when could be applied to test administrative action.
       The question of the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or other of the well known principles known as Wednesbury principles. (Para 24)
       Under Articles 19(2) to (6), restrictions on fundamental freedoms can be imposed only by legislation. In cases where such legislation is made and the restrictions are reasonable yet, if the concerned statute permitted the administrative authorities to exercise power or discretion while imposing restrictions in individual situations, question frequently arises whether a wrong choice is made by the administrator for imposing restriction or whether the administrator has not properly balanced the fundamental right and the need for the restriction or whether he has imposed the least of the restrictions or the reasonable quantum of restriction etc. In such cases, the administrative action in our country, in our view, has to be tested on the principle of ‘proportionality’, just as it is done in the case of the main legislation. (Para 52)
       In India were administrative action is challenged under Article 14 as being discriminatory, equals are treated unequally or unequals are treated equally, the question is for the Constitutional Courts as primary reviewing Courts to consider correctness of the level of discrimination applied and whether it is excessive and whether it has a nexus with the objective intended to be achieved by the administrator. Here the Court deals with the merits of the balancing action of the administrator and is, in essence, applying ‘proportionality’ and is a primary reviewing authority (Para 64)
       When administrative action is attacked as applies . (Para 66)
       Where an administrative decision relating to punishment is disciplinary cases is questioned as ‘arbitrary’ under Article 14, the Court is confined to Wednesbury principles as a secondary reviewing authority. The Court will not apply proportionality as a primary reviewing Court because no issue of fundamental freedoms nor of discrimination under Article 14 applies in such a context. The Court while reviewing punishment and if it is satisfied that Wednesbury principles are violated, it has normally to remit the matter to the administrator for a fresh decision as to the quantum of punishment. Only in rare cases where there has been long delay in the time taken by the disciplinary proceedings and in the time taken in the Courts and such extreme or rare cases can the Court substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment. (Para 69)

ORDER

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.—This case concerns the proceedings arising out of an order of this Court dated 4.5.2000 proposing to reopen the quantum of punishments imposed in departmental inquiries on certain officers of Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter called the DDA) who were connected with the land of the DDA allotted to M/s. Skipper Construction Co. It was proposed to consider imposition of higher degree of punishments in view of the role of these officers in the said matter. After directions were given by this Court that disciplinary action be taken and punishments were imposed, this Court had no occasion to examine whether the right punishments were awarded to the officers in accordance with well known principles of law or whether the punishments required any upward revision.

2. The facts of the case limited to the present order are as follows:

By an order dated 29.11.94, this Court requested Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy (former Judge of this Court), to investigate into the conduct of the officials of the DDA including its ex-officio Chairman at the relevant time, in handing over the possession of the suit land in M/s. Skipper Construction Pvt. Ltd. before receiving the auction amount in full and also in "conniving" at the construction thereon as well as at the advertisements given by it for bookings in the building in question. The learned Judge was also requested to "look into the legality and propriety of the order dated 4.10.98 passed by the then ex-officio Chairman of the DDA and the directions given by the Central Government under Section 41 of the Delhi Development Act."

Report of Justice Chinnappa Reddy and orders thereon :

3. Justice Reddy submitted his report on 7.7.95. Thereafter, this Court accepted the Report and passed an order of 29.11.95, directing the Department of Personnel to initiate disciplinary proceedings against five officers (i) Sri V.S. Ailawadi IAS (retired), (ii) Sri K.S. Baidwan, IAS, (iii) Sri Virendra Nath IAS, (iv) Sri R.S. Sethi IAS and (v) Sri Om Kumar IAS. This Court, in its order, stated that so for as Sri Om Kumar was concerned, only a minor punishment could be imposed.

Consequent Disciplinary Inquiry :

4. Thereafter, Sri P.K. Gopinath was appointed as Inquiry Officer on 8.8.96. Report of the Inquiry Officer was received on 31.8.96 so far as Sri Virendra Nath and Sri Om Kumar were concerned. Copy was sent to the officers on 11.1.96 and replies of the officers were received. Similarly, in the case of Sri K.S. Baidwan and Sri R.S. Sethi, Inquiry Officer, Sri P.K. Gopinath was appointed on 20.8.96, report was received on 31.10.96 and copies were given to the officers on 14.11.96 and replies were received from them. As regards, Sri V.S. Ailawadi, in view of the expiry of four years prescribed in Rule 6(1)(b)(ii) of the All India Service (Death-cum-Retirement Benefits) Rules, 1958 upon which the officer relied, the Department, did not take any action.

5. On 5.2.97, after taking tentative decisions, the cases of the four officers were referred to the U.P.S.C. as required by the All India Service (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1969. The advice of the U.P.S.C. dated 28.2.97 was received by the department on 3.3.97. The said advice was favourable to the officers. Since there was difference in the tentative decisions of the competent authority and the advice of the UPSC, the matter was reconsidered by the Department of Personnel so far as Sri Virendra Nath and Sri Om Kumar. Similarly, the Ministry of Home Affairs, in the cases of Sri K.S. Baidwan and Sri R.S. Sethi, differed from a similar view of the UPSC.

6. It was considered by the Committee of Secretaries that the UPSC must be asked to reconsider its advice. The Home Ministry was requested to take action in this behalf in the case of Sri K.S. Baidwan and Sri. R.S. Sethi. The reconsidered advice of the UPSC was received on 16.6.97. It was in favour of the officers. The matter concerning the four officers was placed again before the Committee of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 1853

Cases Referred (25)