2004 (12) TMI 687 - SC - Indian Laws

Quantum of punishment - Legality of the punishment of removal imposed on the employee - Scope of judicial review in administrative decisions related to disciplinary actions - Application of the principle of proportionality in administrative law - HELD THAT - In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury's case (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision- making process and not the decision. To put differently unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. In the case at hand, the High Court's judgment is full of ifs and buts. There is no definite finding recorded that the punishment is suffering from any infirmity. No basis has been indicated to direct re-consideration of the quantum of punishment. It is to be noted that the respondent had miserably failed to prove bonafides. Though he took the stand that he had informed the head office about the withdrawal, no material was placed before any of the authorities to prove it. It is to be noted that on the basis of material on record, it was concluded that the withdrawal was on 6.5.1992 and not on 9.5.1992 as was claimed. The respondent-employee has withdrawn a sum of ₹ 20,000/- from the account of bank with the State Bank of India on 6.5.1992 and had withdrawn a further sum of ₹ 5,000/- from the cash. Above being the position the impugned judgment of the High Court cannot be maintained and the same is set aside. The Writ Petition filed by the respondent-employee, stands dismissed. The appeal is allowed. No costs.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the High Court's direction to reconsider the punishment imposed on the employee.
2. Scope of judicial interference with the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters.
3. Evaluation of the principles of "proportionality" and "Wednesbury reasonableness" in administrative decisions.

Summary:

Legality of the High Court's Direction:
The Supreme Court examined the legality of the Madhya Pradesh High Court's direction to the Board of Directors of the employer Bank to reconsider the punishment imposed on the employee, Munna Lal Jain. The High Court had directed the Board to pass any punishment other than dismissal, removal, or termination, considering that the employee had repaid the amount with 24% interest and had no prior delinquency record. The Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment lacked a definite finding that the punishment was shockingly disproportionate and did not provide a basis for directing reconsideration of the quantum of punishment.

Scope of Judicial Interference:
The Supreme Court reiterated that interference with the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters should not be a routine matter. The Court highlighted that judicial review is limited to assessing whether the decision-making process was deficient, rather than substituting its own decision for that of the disciplinary authority. The Court emphasized that unless the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the Court, there is no scope for interference. The High Court failed to record reasons as to why it found the punishment shockingly disproportionate, which is a requirement for such interference.

Principles of "Proportionality" and "Wednesbury Reasonableness":
The Supreme Court referred to various precedents and principles, including the Wednesbury case and the CCSU case, which outline the limited scope of judicial review in administrative actions. The Court explained that administrative decisions should be tested for legality, procedural irregularity, and irrationality. The principle of "proportionality" involves ensuring that the least restrictive measures are chosen to achieve the objective, while "Wednesbury reasonableness" focuses on whether the decision was one that no reasonable person could have taken. The Court noted that in the present case, there was no finding that the punishment was irrational or in outrageous defiance of logic.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court's judgment was full of contradictions and lacked a definite finding of any infirmity in the punishment. The respondent-employee failed to prove his bonafides, and there was no material evidence to support his claim of informing the head office about the withdrawal. The withdrawal was found to have occurred on a different date than claimed by the employee. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent-employee. The appeal was allowed with no costs.