Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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