You are on page 1of 1

6.

Considering the above submissions of the parties as well as materials brought on record, it
appears that the writ Court considered the proposition in Union of India v. Ghulam Mohd. Bhat
reported in (2005) 13 SCC 228 as well as Ram Saran v. IG of Police, CRPF reported in (2006) 2 SCC 541
and held that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision making process.
The courts should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers
from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court. The punishment of
removal from service for absence without sanctioned leave, can be awarded under Section 11(1)
read with Rule 27 of CRPF Rules, by competent authority even if delinquent is not prosecuted for an
offence under Section 9 or Section 10 of Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955. In the instant
case, the petitioner has also admitted his guilt and charges were held proved after affording full
opportunity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court again reiterated its position in Chandra Kumar Chopra v.
Union of India reported in (2012) 6 SCC 369 wherein it has been held that primary obligation of a
member of Armed Forces is to maintain discipline in all aspects. It has been held that the doctrine of
proportionality is uninvocable. In case of S.R Tewari v. Union of India reported in (2013) 6 SCC 602
the court has also considered that scope of judicial review of punishment awarded by disciplinary
authority is extremely limited. The Court can interfere with quantum of punishment only where
punishment awarded is found to be shockingly or strikingly disproportionate to gravity of
misconduct or is arbitrary, violating Article 14 of the Constitution. Court cannot while exercising
power of judicial review, interfere with punishment merely because it considers punishment to be
disproportionate. It is only in extreme cases which on its face, show perversity or irrationality that
there can be judicial review of punishment and courts should not interfere merely on compassionate
grounds.

You might also like