Service Law-Employee-Disciplinary enquiry-Punishment-Proportionality to gravity of offence-Power of Court to interfere with quantum of Punishment-Extent of-Doctrine of proportionality. 

Delhi Development Authority-Officials-Disciplinary enquiry- Punishment-Order by Supreme Court reopening the question of quantum of punishment-Upward revision of punishment by Supreme Court-Permissibility and extent of-Proportionality and punishment in service law. 

Administrative Law

Doctrine of Proportionality and Wednesbury Principles-Applicability  of-Meaning of proportionality-Position in other countries discussed-Distinction between primary and secondary roles of Courts in the matter of proportionality-Proportionality and administrative action. 

Where administrative action is challenged under Article 14 as being discriminatory, equals are treated unequally or un-equals are treated equally, the question is for the Constitutional Courts as primary reviewing Courts to consider correctness of the level of discrimination applied and whether it is excessive and whether it has a nexus with the objective intended to be achieved by the administrator-Here the Court deals with the merits of the balancing action of the administrator and is, in essence, applying 'proportionality' and is a primary reviewing authority-But where, an administrative action is challenged as 'arbitrary' under Article 14 as in cases where punishments in disciplinary cases are challenged, the question will be whether the administrative order is 'rational' or 'reasonable' and the test then is the Wednesbury test-The Courts would then be confined only to a secondary role and will only have to see whether the administrator has done well in his primary role, whether he has acted illegally or has omitted relevant factors from consideration or has taken irrelevant factors into consideration or whether his view is one which no reasonable person could have taken-If his action does not satisfy these rules, it is to be treated as arbitrary.

Held where an administrative decision relating to punishment in disciplinary cases is questioned as 'arbitrary' under Article 14, the Court is confined to Wednesbury principles as a secondary reviewing authority-The Court will not apply proportionality as a primary reviewing Court because no issue of fundamental freedoms nor of discrimination under Article 14 applies in such a context-The Court while reviewing punishment and if it is satisfied that Wednesbury principles are violated, it has normally to remit the matter to the administrator for a fresh decision as to the quantum of punishment-Only in rare cases where there has been long delay in the time taken by the disciplinary proceedings and in the time taken in the Courts, and such extreme or rare cases can the Court substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment.

Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 226

High Court-Judicial review-Power of High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters.

Part III-Fundamental Rights-Proportionality and legislation-Power of Court to declare unconstitutional on the Principle of Proportionality legislation relating to restrictions on fundamental freedoms could be tested on the anvil of 'proportionality'-This is called 'primary' review by the Courts of the validity of legislation which offended fundamental freedoms.

Articles 14 and 21-Principle of proportionality.