Disciplinary punishment review is limited to Wednesbury unreasonableness, not full proportionality review, in service matters.

In disciplinary punishment challenges under Article 14, judicial review is limited to Wednesbury unreasonableness rather than primary proportionality review. Interference is justified only if the punishment is illegal, based on irrelevant considerations, ignores relevant material, or is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could impose it. Applying that standard, the Court found that the censure imposed on one officer and the major penalty imposed on another did not suffer from irrationality or shock the conscience. The disciplinary authority had considered the inquiry reports, Commission report, UPSC advice, and the relevant mitigating and adverse factors. The punishments were therefore not liable to be enhanced, and no reference to the Vigilance Commissioner was required.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in disciplinary matters, the Court could interfere with the quantum of punishment on the ground that it was arbitrary or disproportionate, and whether the proposed upward revision of the punishments imposed on the officers warranted reference to the Vigilance Commissioner.

Analysis: The Court distinguished between cases where administrative action affecting fundamental freedoms or discriminatory classification is tested on proportionality as a primary review, and cases where punishment in service jurisprudence is challenged as arbitrary under Article 14, in which the Court exercises only a secondary review on Wednesbury principles. In the latter situation, interference is justified only where the decision is illegal, ignores relevant considerations, takes into account irrelevant considerations, or is so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could have imposed it. Applying that standard, the Court found that the minor penalty of censure imposed on one officer and the major penalty imposed on the other did not suffer from Wednesbury irrationality or shock the conscience of the Court. The disciplinary authority had considered the relevant inquiry reports, the Commission report, the UPSC advice, and the mitigating or adverse factors placed before it.

Conclusion: The punishments already imposed were not liable to be enhanced, and no reference to the Vigilance Commissioner was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: In disciplinary punishment cases challenged as arbitrary, judicial review is confined to Wednesbury unreasonableness and not primary proportionality review, and interference is warranted only in rare cases where the punishment is illegal, ignores relevant factors, or is shockingly disproportionate.

---