H.KHAMBA Vs. STATE OF MANIPUR REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONE appears for the petitioner. Heard Ms.Sundari, learned GA appearing for the respondents.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing (1) the order of the Superintendent of Police, Bishnupur, (Mr.P.Doungel) i.e., respondent No.4, dated 31.10.1994 for dismissing the petitioner only on the charge that the petitioner had unauthorizedly absented for 36 days i.e. for the absence w.e.f. 09.03.1994 to 05.04.1994 and 14.04.1994 to 21.04.1994 and (ii) order dated 02.03.2005 for dismissing the appeal against the dismissal order dated 31.10.1994 passed by the same person, i.e. Mr.P.Doungel, IPS, in the capacity of appellate authority, i.e., Dy.I.G. of Police (Range -III).

(3.) THE scope of interference with the quantum of punishment has been the subject matter of various decisions of the Apex Court. It is fairly well settled that Wednesbury Test is to be applied while this court is exercising the power of judicial review of punishment (the quantum of punishment) imposed by the authority. While applying the Wednesbury test, the court would be confined only to the secondary role and will have to see whether the administrator has done well in his primary role of deciding the quantum of punishment. While exercising the secondary role under Wednesbury test, court has to see whether the authority, in exercise of his primary role has acted illegally or has omitted the relevant factors from consideration or whether his view is the one which no reasonable person could have taken. It is now no more res -integra that the Court normally interferes with the quantum of punishment if the punishment (quantum) imposed by the authority or by the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the court. Regarding this settled position of law it would be suffice to refer to the decisions of the Apex Court in B.C.Chaturvedi Vs Union of India: (1995) 6 SCC 749. The Apex Court (Constitution Bench) in E.P.Royappa Vs State of T.N: (1974) 4 SCC 3 held that where an administrative action is challenged as arbitrary, (as in the cases where the punishment in disciplinary cases are challenged) the question will be whether the administrative order is rational or reasonable and test then is Wednesbury test. In Wednesbury test while exercising the secondary role, court has to see whether the punishment (quantum of punishment) imposed by the administrative authority is the one which no reasonable person could have taken. Now the question, if the dismissal of the petitioner from service for unauthorized absence of 36 days would be the one which no reasonable person could have taken. In the present case, as stated above, procedure for imposing punishment is one which no reasonable person could have adopted inasmuch as one cannot be the appellate authority of his own order. In the present case as stated above, Mr.Doungel, has acted as appellate authority against his own order.