Doctrine of proportionality

bias and prejudice. The doctrine operates both in procedural

evidence of
has been expanded in recent times
and substantive matters.* The doctrineadministrative law 242
andapplied to various areas other than

(d) Illustrative cases

Let us consider some cases on the point.
In Hind Construction Engg. Co. Ltd. v. Workman'43 , some workers
remained absent from duty treating a particular day as holiday. They
vere dis1missed from service. The Industrial Tribunal set aside the action.
Confirming the order of the tribunal, theSupreme Court observed that the
absence couldhave been treated as leave without pay. The workman might
have been warned and fined. It is impossible to think that any reasonable
employer would bave imposed the extreme punishment of dismissal on its
entire permanent staff in this manner. (emphasis supplied)
In Ranjit Thakur244, an Army Officer did not obey the lawful command
of his superior officer by not eating food offered to him. Court martial
proceedings were initiated and a sentence of rigorous imprisonment of one
vear was imposed. He was also dismissed from service, with added disqual
ification that he would be unfit for future employment. The said order
was challenged inter alia on the ground that the punishment was grossly
disproportionate. Upholding the contention, following Council of Civil
Service Unions24$, and emphasising that "all powers have legal limits",
Venkatachaliah | (as he then was) rightly observed:
is within the juris
The question of the choice and quantum of punishment has to suit the
diction and discretion of the court-martial. But the sentence
harsh. It should
offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly
so disproportionate tothe offence as to shock the conscience and amount
not be proportionality as part
In itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of on an aspect which
even
of the concept of iudicial review, would ensure that court-martial, if the decision
1S, otherwise, within the excusive province of the defiance of logic, then the
outrageous
tne court even as to sentence is an Irrationality and perversity
sentence would not be immune from correction. (emphasis supplied)
re recognised grounds of judicial review.**
In jawan serving in an ndian Army
Sardar Singh v. Union of India'47,
was granted leave and
a
home town, he purchased eleven
while going to his
1 Service
Council of Civil
Wade & Forsyth. Administrative Lau (2009)
AC
313-3
374
I4;
(HL): Jitendra Kumarv. State of
V. forthe Ciil Service, r985
 'substitu

Suprenm
Adnministrative Discretion
JudicialReview of
the
orde
Lecture 8
though he was entitledIto carry only four Again
army cantcen sentenccd to undergo rigorous a nempl
bottles of rum trom procecdings, he was dismissed from service. Hi.
martial
bottles. In court three months and was also dismissed by theHich CATred
imprisonment for was
Article 226 of the Constitution Court. Holding the action matters
petition under
petitioner approached the Supremeaside the order. anduph
Court.The punishment severe, the court set Court took
arbitrary and Nanda48, however, the Supreme
charge-sheeted along
Rely
Union of lndia v. Parma employee was Corpn.
In In that case, an false pay bills and bogus identity
narrow view. COurt1
avery employees for preparing punishment was
with two other allof them were found guilty. A minordismissed from service. thepu
card. In enquiry petitioner was sonab
imposed on two
employees, but the plan. His application before the
"master-mind'" behind the allowed and the penalty rule, t
since he was Tribunal (CAT) was partly
Central Administrative two other employees. Union of India approached recons
was reduced in the line of Division Bench of three substi
The appeal was heard by a
the Supreme Court. In
judges. setting aside the judgment of the tribunal and certa
Allowing the appeal, Bidyabhushan Mabapatra249 and other cases250 disch
considering the decision in the court stated:
and making wider observations,
serio
be imposed and is imposed on the proved misconduct, 1ncr
If the penalty can lawfully
power to substitute its own discretion for that of
the
and
the Tribunal has no
adequacy of penalty unless it is mala fide is certainly not a matter
authority. The The Tribunal also cannot interfere with
R
for the Tribunal to concern itself with.
the competent authority
the penalty if the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer orirrelevant
Cou
found to be or extraneous to aS
is based on evidence even if some of it is
the matter, 251
(emphasis supplied) to

It is submitted that the observations made by the Supreme Court did not det
lay down the correct law inasmuch as the doctrine of proportional1ty in
awarding punishment has been recognised by the Indian Courts since Co
long. It is no doubttrue that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the di
punishment awarded to the petitioner could not be said to be excessively
high or grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled and proved against
him, wider observations were unnecessary. If the punishment imposed on
employee is excessively harsh or disproportionate, a High Court or th
Supreme Court, in exercise of the powers under Articles 32, I36, 226 and
227 of the Constitution, can interfere with it. If CAT could be said to be

248. (T989) 2 SCC I77: AIR 1989 SC II85.

249. State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mabapatra, AIR 1963 SC 779: 1963 Supp (1) SCR