Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 74 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan, Ex General Secretary, AIPEU Group C

      Conduct & Disciplinary Rules - 74 : Article from Mr. K.V.Shridharan, Ex General Secretary, AIPEU Group C

Conduct & Disciplinary Rules – 74

CCS Rules & Principles of Natural justice

II.      Mala fide exercise of administrative powers - Contrary to natural justice

State action must be based on valid relevant principles applicable alike to all similarly situated and it must not be guided by any extraneous or irrelevant consideration because that would be denial of equality. Where the operative reason for State action, as distinguished from motive inducing from the antechamber of the mind, is not legitimate and relevant but is extraneous and outside the area of permissible considerations, it would amount to mala fide exercise of power and that is hit by Art. 14 and 16. Mala fide exercise of power and arbitrariness are different lethal radiations emanating from the same vice; in fact the later comprehends the former. Both are inhibited by Art 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

[E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, and another, AIR 1974 SC 555.]

III.    Colourable exercise of powers - Contrary to natural justice

When an authority acts from some improper motive or ulterior consideration, under the colour of exercising statutory power, his act is said to have been done in the colourable exercise of power.

Thus, for example, the services of a Government servant may be terminated by a simple order of termination in the exercise of statutory, power, but if the intention is something else, i.e. imposing punishment of removal from service in the guise of a simple order it would be a colourable exercise of power.

When, therefore, a Government servant alleges that the order of compulsory retirement before the age of superannuation, especially during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings is mala fide and violative of service rules, it is sufficient for the Court to make out a prima facie case for the issue of Rule nisi.

[S. C. Sen v. State of W.B., 1968 Lab IC 731 (Cal.)]

IV.    Perverse Finding - Contrary to natural justice

A perverse finding is a finding which is not supported by evidence and is impelled by arbitrariness or prejudice. If a finding of the Inquiry Officer is one which is not supported by evidence or is such that no rational or reasonable man can demonstrably reach on the evidence, it will be set aside on the ground that it is perverse.

[Central Bank of India v. P.C. Jain, 1969 II LLJ 377]

Where, in arriving at his findings, the Inquiry Officer has excluded materials which are relevant and/or taken into consideration materials which are irrelevant and/or based his findings on conjectures, surmises or suspicion, the findings will be held to be perverse.

[A.J. Vaswani v. Union of India 1983 II LLJ 122]