https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171765 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. en-us Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Apr 2025 15:53:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171765 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=171765