Mr. K.G.Soni was a Store Attendant in the Bank Note Press, District Dewas (M.P). A charge-sheet was issued against him on finding that though he had got married with one Parvathibai in the year 1973, while filling up the attestation form on 16.3.1974, he did not show her name as his wife. It was further alleged that he got married for the second time in October, 1974 with one Ushabai. On the basis of this non-disclosure, which, authorities considered to be a misconduct, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated. The non-disclosure came to the notice of the authorities when Parvathibai made a complaint about the second marriage. The enquiry was conducted under Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (in short the 'Rules'). The Enquiry Officer recorded findings in favour of the respondent. The Disciplinary Authority differed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and came to hold that second marriage had in fact been performed and eventually came to hold that the respondent was guilty of misconduct and imposed the punishment of removal by order dated 2.4.1996.

Being aggrieved, he preferred an appeal and the Appellate Authority converted the punishment of removal into one of compulsory retirement. Again this order was challenged in CAT which came to the conclusion that the application was barred by limitation and accordingly declined to entertain the same.

This order of the CAT was challenged in a writ application before Madhya Pradesh High Court and it was contended that the Tribunal had erroneously held that there was no application for condonation of delay and submitted that the Tribunal should have condoned the delay and dealt with the matter on merits. It was further submitted that the quantum of punishment awarded did not commensurate with the alleged misconduct.

The High Court held that it was of the view that ordinarily it would have remanded the matter to Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits but it was of the view that this is a fit case where the matter should be remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration with regard to the quantum of punishment. The only basis for coming to the conclusion that the complaint was made by the wife about the alleged second marriage belatedly, and this is not such a misconduct which warrants compulsory retirement before his superannuation.

This order of the High Court was challenged before the Supreme Court on the ground that High Court has clearly lost sight of the scope for interference with the quantum of punishment. The learned counsel for the respondent, of course, supported the judgment

After considering the arguments from both sides, Hon'ble SC has referred to its earlier rulings on the question of interference by the courts on the quantum of punishment, and held that the common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court 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, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. 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. 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. The High Court has not kept the correct position in view. It has not even indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate and why it considered the misconduct to be not serious. By holding so, the SC has set aside the HC order.

(See 2006-HRIOL-23-SC-SERVICE in 'Laws 4 You)