Owner Can Avoid Confiscation Under NDPS by Proving Lack of Knowledge or Connivance in Illicit Use of Vehicle: Supreme Court Court is Expert of Experts: High Court Upholds Right to Rebuttal Evidence in Will Dispute Exceptional Circumstances Warrant Use of Inherent Powers to Reduce Sentences in Non-Compoundable Offenses: Supreme Court Execution of Eviction Decree Limited to Suit Premises; Additional Claims Not Permissible: Bombay High Court Only Apprentices Under the 1961 Act Are Excluded from Gratuity – Calcutta High Court Demand for Penalty and Interest Without Following Natural Justice Violates Section 11A of the Central Excise Act: P&H High Court Rajasthan High Court Acquits Bank Manager, Citing "Processing Fee, Not Bribe" in Corruption Case Compensatory Nature of Section 138 NI Act Permits Compounding Even at Revisional Stage: Madras High Court Kerala High Court Quashes GST Demand of Rs. 99 Crore: Faults Adjudicating Authority for Contradictory Findings Section 138 NI Act | Compounding Permitted Even at Revisional Stage with Reduced Fee in Special Circumstances: HP High Court No Renewal, Only Re-Tendering’ – Upholds Railway Board’s MPS License Policy: Delhi High Court Punjab and Haryana High Court Quashes Second FIR Against Former Minister in Corruption Case Nature of Suit Must Be Determined on Evidence, Not Technical Grounds: Delhi High Court on Rejection of Plaint Economic Offences Must Be Scrutinized to Protect Public Interest:  Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea to Quash FIR Against Cloud Investment Scheme Company Golden Hour Care Is a Matter of Right, Not Privilege: Supreme Court on Road Accident Victim Treatment Limitation Law | When Once the Time Has Begun to Run, Nothing Stops It: Supreme Court Section 14 of Limitation Act Shields Bona Fide Claimants: SC Validates Arbitration Amid Procedural Delay Time Lost Cannot Be Restored, But Justice Can: Supreme Court Orders Immediate Release of Convict Declared Juvenile Bailable Warrants in Domestic Violence Cases Only in Exceptional Circumstances - Domestic Violence Act Cases Are Primarily Remedial, Not Punitive: Supreme Court

Judicial Review Not a Gateway to Alter Disciplinary Decisions: Delhi HC Upholds Election Commission’s Penalties in Disciplinary Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court of Delhi, in a significant ruling, has upheld the disciplinary action taken by the Election Commission of India against Kumar Rajeev, underlining the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters.

The case, Kumar Rajeev vs. Election Commission of India, primarily revolved around the challenge to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which dismissed the Original Application filed by Rajeev. This application contested the penalties imposed on him, including compulsory retirement and withholding of promotion for five years. The heart of the matter was Rajeev’s false declarations concerning his parents’ income for CGHS benefits and a fraudulent claim of medical reimbursements.

Rajeev, a former assistant in the Election Commission, faced disciplinary proceedings due to false income declarations and fraudulent claims, leading to an initial penalty of compulsory retirement. This was later modified by the appellate authority to withholding of promotion for five years. Rajeev challenged these decisions, claiming the penalties to be excessive.

The court observed the limited scope of judicial review, emphasizing that “this Court cannot substitute the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority by a different penalty.” The assessment also included:

Proportionality of Punishment: The High Court found no grounds to interfere with the modified penalty, considering the serious nature of the charges.

Role of Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities: The court recognized the roles of these authorities in determining suitable penalties, highlighting that the appellate authority’s decision took into account the petitioner’s conduct and circumstances.

The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Tribunal’s decision and the disciplinary penalty imposed on Rajeev. It reasserted the principle that courts should not interfere in disciplinary matters where authorities have competently exercised their judgment.

Date of Decision: March 22, 2024

Kumar Rajeev vs. Election Commission of India

Similar News