Sunil Mohite v. Union Of India & Others
!
"
#
1.
Prayer
! "
# Certiorari$
&'
(
(&) * +,"""- (&)./!+"" 0 1 1
0 2$
%
(-
(&) 03 ) 0
&- &
(&) 0 4 0
0 (& (2
(&2 0 010
11 1
2.
Brief Facts ! 3 5 &4 (
&''' 1
!11 ! 67 +28 ((& " (&)
9
:
;
(
(
(&) % 0121 1 &&1 %
&&1 %
< % 0 :
!11 = 0 %0
%+ (4 (4
(&) > &&6&8 ! 3 5 &')' 6 0 !35 8 %
1 $
0 /$
0?
% ;
0 0 &'
(
(&)
1 1 @
(-
(&) &- &
(&) 10 (& (2
(&2 0 % (& $ %+ 1
= (
('
(& %% 0 @ !
!
% % 67 +& +)8 1 3.
Contentions On behalf of Petitioner A
1
1 % 1 0 % "
%
> && !35
1 01 0
1
1 1 = 1%
> ' &( !35 " 1
1
01
%
0
% %1
$
0
1 0
$
$
0
1 0 % 7 1
0
% 1
= $
On behalf of Respondents A !
:
;
0
0 % 0 1 7 0 0 0 "
0
11 0&& & (
(
(&) 0 :
!11 = 10 > $
0 1 %
1 > &&6&8 !35&')'
1 11
% 0 %
" %
1 % $
1 0
1
1
4&&6 8 ! =
%+ +7 1
0 0
0
0
0 1
0 % 10
0
% %
% = % =
! .
1 % 0
1 % $
1 1 @ C11
11 0 % 1 1 1 01 1
%
1
4.
Analysis @ %
;
0 1 0
1 :
;
0 D
001
> % 1 1 1
11 10
1
% %
%0 11
0
C11 1 1 0
1 1 1
7
0 0 % % 0 1 %
% > &&6&8 !35 &')'
1
1 %0 1 1 0 #
%
%
1 0 1 1
1 11
%
0 % 1 :
1 0 1 1 = %1"Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India (1987) 4 SCC 611"
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.
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
0
11 11 % 01
% %% % 7
"
0 %% 1 1
%%
% 0 1
1 0 > 1! EState of Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, AIR 1964 SC 506" :
7. Under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. as interpreted by this Court, a Government servant must have a reasonable opportunity not only to prove that he is not guilty of the charges levelled against him, but also to establish that the punishment proposed to be imposed is either not called for or excessive. The said opportunity is
to be a reasonable opportunity and, therefore, it is necessary that the Government servant must be told of the grounds on which it is proposed to take such action : see the decision of this Court in the State of Assam v. Bimal Kumar Pandit, Civil Appeal No. 832 of 1962 Decided on 12%2%1963. If the grounds are not given in the notice, it would be well nigh impossible for him to predicate what is operating on the mind of the authority concerned in proposing a particular punishment: he would not be in a position to explain why he does not deserve any punishment at all or that the punishment proposed is excessive. If the proposed punishment was mainly based upon the previous record of a Government servant and that was not disclosed in the notice, it would mean that the main reason for the proposed punishment was withheld from the knowledge of the Government servant. It would be no answer to suggest that every Government servant must have had knowledge of the fact that his past record would necessarily be taken into consideration by the Government in inflicting punishment on him.
= 0 1 % 7 0 % 1 0
11 % 7 1
1 C%
01 @ 1 >
% 7
%
1 1 %0 1
!
1 $
1 0 7
1 %
10= =
0 0 $
&'()*+,&'
%0 -))&./0 1
sham Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No