CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness

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

Latest Legal News