Judicial review of disciplinary penalty cannot replace the authority's choice of punishment where misconduct is proved by legal evidence.

In service disciplinary matters, a tribunal exercising judicial review cannot substitute its own view on the adequacy or proportionality of punishment for that of the competent disciplinary authority when the enquiry is lawful and the finding of misconduct is supported by legal evidence. The statutory jurisdiction under the Administrative Tribunals Act extends to judicial review, not appellate reappraisal of disciplinary penalties. Interference is justified only in exceptional cases such as mala fides, perversity, absence of evidence, or the special constitutional regime under Article 311(2). The Tribunal's reduction of the dismissal penalty was therefore unsustainable, and the disciplinary authority's punishment was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Administrative Tribunal can interfere with a disciplinary penalty on the ground that it is excessive or disproportionate where the findings of misconduct are supported by legal evidence.

Analysis: The statutory scheme of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 confers on the Tribunal the jurisdiction, powers and authority that the High Court or civil court could have exercised in service matters, but only to the extent of judicial review and not as a court of appeal over disciplinary authorities. In disciplinary proceedings, if the enquiry is held in accordance with the rules and principles of natural justice and the misconduct is supported by evidence, the choice of punishment lies within the exclusive province of the competent authority. The adequacy of penalty is not open to Tribunal review merely because a lesser punishment might also have been possible. Interference is justified only in exceptional situations such as mala fides, perversity, absence of evidence, or where the punishment is imposed under the special constitutional regime of conviction-based dismissal under Article 311(2).

Conclusion: The Tribunal had no power to reduce the punishment on the ground of proportionality and its interference with the dismissal order was unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The disciplinary authority's punishment was restored and the challenge to the Tribunal's reduction of penalty failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In service disciplinary matters, a tribunal exercising judicial review cannot substitute its own view on the appropriateness or adequacy of punishment for that of the competent disciplinary authority where the finding of guilt is supported by legal evidence and the enquiry is otherwise valid.

---