Ravinder Kumar Rana v. Union Of India
!!
! "#
"
!"
!
#
! !
!
" # $
%" ! ! "
$ %&' ( !( &) * !))
! "# + ( ,-. / 0 1 2234(
5 $-6 # #
32224(
5 7$-6 # ( 7
# * !
# limine #
8 * / 22 ) 9$ "23 ) / #:
!/ # ; < ; !
/ 0 ) 4/0) 6 22 #1
!
=">/"?+ "?!
,223
! # ! #
(
3.223 #
( @ = !
! @ =
# * !
223
# 8
0 > !/0) !
# 3222! # , (# ! #
. 9
#1
!# !
0 #
# ! @ =
:
# !
#
# 3 0
!
A 7 !
# :9
A # # #
2 (
! #
A ! # 7 #
9
# # 5
/0) ;
!
> ! #
/ ! #
# #
0 #
!
@ =
! !
# #
:
#
0 A # #
!
!
#
!
! !
# # '
#
/
#
# 0
!
# ! # ( @ =
! ! #
= # !
! #1
,
7#
.
# #1
&
! # # !
! !
! !
!
3 0
7 !
1 7 /0) ! #
:
!
5
# ! !
# # ) /
!""#$%& '("!
#
% True the jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the tribunal is not as wide as it is in appeal or revision but once the Court is satisfied ofinjustice or arbitrariness then the restriction, self imposed or statutory, stands removed and no rule or technicality on exercise of power, can stand in way of rendering justice. We are not impressed by the vehement submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General that the CAT, Hyderabad, exceeded its jurisdiction in recording the finding that there was no material in support of the finding that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an enquiry. The jurisdiction to exercise the power under Rule 14(2) was dependent on existence of this primary fact.
If there was no material on which any reasonable person could have come to the conclusion as is envisaged in the rule then the action was vitiated due to erroneous assumption of jurisdictional fact therefore the tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to set aside the orders on this ground. An illegal order passed by the disciplinary authority does not assume the character of legality only because it has been affirmed in appeal or revision unless the higher authority is found to have applied its mind to the basic infirmities in the order. Mere reiteration or repetition instead of adding strength to the order renders it weaker and more vulnerable as even the higher authority constituted under the Act or the Rules for proper appraisal shall be deemed to have failed in discharge of its statutory obligation.
'
=
5 !
4$ 7)0-@5&;) $ 7()0-@5/0'
6! 7 :)
!5 B$ 7/ # )<) !$ 7/ # $<&!$ 7,'/ # ;") !
$
7. ' / # "/ / ! $ 72 ' / # "
$! $ 7 ' / # ) $
! #
#
!
A #
% "PW/3, Constable S.K. Singh, stated that he did not know anything about the incident and did not know whether any report was made at the time of roll call.
PW/4, Constable P.K. Mishra, stated that no abusive language was used, that Saini Sahab went towards the west side and Constable Rana towards the east, and when asked if he saw any incident, he replied that he did not see any incident. PW/6, Head Constable R.N. Singh, stated that no untoward incident occurred in his presence and admitted he did not collect any information regarding the alleged incident. PW/7, Head Constable N.C. Chatterjee, admitted that his knowledge of the incident was entirely hearsay, as he was informed by the complainant.
PW/9, Head Constable Niranjan Parshad, stated unequivocally that no untoward incident took place.
PW/10, Head Constable T.S. Parihar, stated that on 13.06.98 no untoward incident took place and that Guard R.K. Rana was in a normal position."
!
! ()0-@5/0'
! ! #
! A 1 0
#:! #
# # # !
( # 5 ' ! ! # !
1 ! !
#!
A
! A
# C# D
# !
# 1
# ! !
!
# $ # ! #
#
# > #
)*
!"+,$%& (!!-
%
9. Re: contention (d): Judicial review generally speaking, is not directed against a decision, but is directed against the "decision making process". The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction and discretion of the Court/ Martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be A vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court/ Martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of B logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service, [1984] 3 Weekly Law Reports 1174 (HL) Lord Deplock said:
) "... Judicial Review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground l would call 'illegality'. the second irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety'. That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of 'proportionality' which is recognised in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community In BhagatRam v. State of Himachal Pradesh, A.I.R. 1983 SC 454 this Court held:"It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
The point to note, and emphasise is that all powers have legal limits. In the present case the punishment is so strikingly disproportionate as to call for and justify interference. It cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected in judicial review /
#
! #
! # " #
! ! #
/ *+,-./0*+ +
!
#
:
! :
!
! # # !
1
, !
# 4(
5 $- $-6 1
#
1 #
E,F
#
? !
# : . (
!
!
! ! "
& Meenu Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No