9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Fairness in administrative action. 2. Allegations of bias and malafide intent. 3. Issuance and challenge of charge-sheet. 4. Procedural propriety and adherence to rules. Summary: 1. Fairness in Administrative Action: The Supreme Court emphasized that fairness in administrative action is synonymous with reasonableness, which is dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court noted that fairness must be judged from the perspective of an ordinary prudent man. 2. Allegations of Bias and Malafide Intent: The Court discussed the broader purview of the word malice, which includes bias. It highlighted that mere general statements are insufficient to indicate ill will; there must be cogent evidence of bias or a malafide move. The Court cited several precedents, including *Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam v. Girija Shankar Pant*, to illustrate that real likelihood of bias must be based on reasonable suspicion and not mere conjecture. 3. Issuance and Challenge of Charge-sheet: The charge-sheet against the former Chief Secretary of Punjab, Shri V.K. Khanna, was challenged. The charges included acting in a malafide manner, violating established norms, and lack of fair play. The Tribunal dismissed Khanna's application, stating he had the opportunity to reply to the charge-sheet. The High Court, however, found the actions of the respondents to be high-handed, arbitrary, and malafide, and quashed the charge-sheet. 4. Procedural Propriety and Adherence to Rules: The Court examined whether the issuance of the charge-sheet and the subsequent actions adhered to procedural propriety. It was noted that the Chief Minister's direction for an immediate CBI enquiry was within administrative discretion. However, the timing and manner of the actions taken by both the outgoing and incoming administrations were scrutinized for fairness and adherence to rules. Background Facts: Shri V.K. Khanna, as Chief Secretary, referred two cases to the CBI involving allegations against senior officers. The new government, led by Shri Prakash Singh Badal, quickly rescinded these notifications. The High Court found the issuance of the charge-sheet against Khanna to be motivated by malice and quashed it. Rival Contentions: The appellants argued that the High Court's judgment was unsustainable and that the disciplinary proceedings were justified. They emphasized the absence of malice. On the other hand, Khanna contended that the charge-sheet was a result of malafide intent due to his actions against senior officers. Opinion of the Court: The Supreme Court concurred with the High Court's findings, stating that malafide intent or biased attitude must be judged based on the facts and circumstances of each case. The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's decision to quash the charge-sheet against Shri V.K. Khanna.
|
