DR. SWAPAN GARAINversusTATA INSTITUTE OF SOCIAL SCIENCES, THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AND ORS.

                                                            WP-1487-2018.doc


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                 WRIT PETITION NO. 1487 OF 2018
Dr. Swapan Garain                     ]
A citizen of India, age 57 years      ]
Residing at Flat No.605, B-Wing,      ]
 th
6 Floor Orchid Residency CHS          ]
Behind Jain Mandir, Govandi (East)    ]
Mumbai 400 088                        ].....Petitioner

                   Versus

1.        Tata Institute of Social Sciences, ]
          A Deemed University                ]
          Through its Director               ]
          having office at Deonar,           ]
          V. N. Purav Marg                   ]
           Mumbai 400 088                    ]
                                             ]
2.        The Chairman and Members of the ]
          Governing Body and the Appellate ]
          Authority                          ]
          Tata Institute of Social Sciences  ]
          having office at Deonar,           ]
          V. N. Marg                         ]
          Mumbai 400 088.                    ]
3.        The Director and Disciplinary      ]
          Authority, Tata Institue of Social ]
          Sciences                           ]
          having office at Deonar,           ]
          V. N. Purav Marg                   ]
          Mumbai 400 088                     ]
                                             ]
4.        D. N. Sandanshiv                   ]
          Inquiry Authority                  ]
          Tata Institute of Social Sciences  ]
          having office at Deonar,           ]
          V. N. Purav Marg                   ]
          Mumbai 400 088.                    ].....Respondents

Manisha                                                               1/22
             Digitally signed by
MANISHA      MANISHA
             BALKRISHNA
BALKRISHNA   TALEKAR
TALEKAR      Date: 2026.09.16
             19:23:23 +0530
                                                           WP-1487-2018.doc


                                 .....
Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Dhruva Gandhi a/w Mr. Dheer Sampat i/b M. V. Kini & Co., for
the Respondents.
                             ..…
                   CORAM            : M. S. KARNIK &
                                      SANDESH D.PATIL, JJ.
                         RESERVED ON         : 27th AUGUST 2026
                         PRONOUNCED ON : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026

JUDGMENT [PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.] :-

1.        By the present Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the

order dated 29th March, 2016 passed by the Respondent No.3,

whereby the Petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29 th

March, 2016. The Petitioner is also challenging the Order dated 6 th

September, 2017 passed by the Respondent No.3, imposing upon the

Petitioner the punishment of compulsory retirement from the services

w.e.f. 6th September, 2017. The Petitioner is also seeking direction

against Respondent Nos.1 to 3 to reinstate the Petitioner in services

with continuity in services, full back wages and other consequential

benefits as if no such impugned Orders have been passed by the

Respondent Nos.1 to 3.


2.        The Petitioner was in employment of the Respondent No.1. The

Petitioner was appointed on 13 th July, 1985, and he was working as

Manisha                                                              2/22
                                                            WP-1487-2018.doc


Professor in the school of social work of the Respondent No.1 i.e.

Tata Institute of Social Sciences. He was also a ex-student of the

Respondent No.1. The Respondents alleged that the Petitioner had

created a parallel WhatsApp group styled as “TISSians Career

Impact2” without the permission of the Institution and that too with

the institute’s official logo. This was a clear violation of Clause No.21

of the Code of conduct applicable to the “TISS employees”. It was

further alleged that the Petitioner by creating the parallel group for

placement services, therefore, breached his service conditions. The

WhatsApp group created by the Petitioner was nothing but virtually a

placement service, soliciting students and alumni for his personal

gains. According to the Respondents, this also amounted to engaging

in business of placement services, which he being a full-time,

permanent faculty of the Institute was prohibited from doing under

the Service Rules. Apart from this, using the logo of the Institute,

was also an infringement of intellectual rights of the Institute. The

Petitioner was alleged to have used the Institute’s resources,

knowledge and information, which was in breach of the accepted

service conditions, besides being a criminal offence under Section 72

of the Information Technology Act 2000. The Petitioner was vide an


Manisha                                                               3/22
                                                        WP-1487-2018.doc


Order dated 29th March, 2016 placed under suspension under Rule

10 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1965 [for short “CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965”].


3.        The Respondent No.3 thereafter issued a memorandum of

charges on 22nd April, 2016 to the Petitioner where the charges are

mentioned in detail. The Petitioner by his reply dated 1 st May, 2016

denied the charges levelled against him. The Respondent No.3

thereafter appointed an Inquiry Committee to inquire into the

charges framed against the Petitioner and appointed the Presenting

Officer to present the case on behalf of the Respondents. By an Order

dated 22nd September, 2016, the Petitioner was informed that the

period of suspension was extended further by 90 days. The

Respondent No.3 by an Office Order dated 28th October, 2016

appointed ‘One Man Committee’ of Professor D.N. Sandanshiv who is

the Respondent No.4 to conduct the inquiry. The Petitioner vide

several letters requested the Respondent No.3 to change the Inquiry

Authority namely Respondent No.4, who was biased against him and

had prejudged the issues. Since the Petitioner was not allowed to

engage a lawyer to present his case before the Inquiry Committee, he



Manisha                                                           4/22
                                                         WP-1487-2018.doc


had filed Writ Petition No. 10966 of 2016 before this Court. This

Court vide an Order dated 26th April, 2017, directed the Respondent

No.4 to permit the Petitioner to engage a lawyer to represent his

case. Thereafter, the oral evidence of Witness No.1 was recorded. The

Petitioner submitted his statement of defence on 11 th July, 2017. The

Petitioner however, was not provided an opportunity to submit his

written brief as provided under rule 14(19) of the CCS (CCA) Rules

1965. The Petitioner was forwarded the Inquiry Authority’s Report

dated 22nd July, 2017 along with the memorandum dated 31 st July,

2017. The Inquiry Authority had framed the following six issues :


     (i)      Whether Prof. Swapan Garain has created the WhatsApp

     Group?

     (ii)     What position is declared by Prof. Swapan Garain in the

     WhatsApp group?

     (iii)    Whether the position declared by Prof. Garain has an

     effect of influencing members?

     (iv)     Whether Prof. Garain has engaged himself in any private

     trade or business or the activities are amounting to trade or

     business?


Manisha                                                             5/22
                                                          WP-1487-2018.doc


     (v)      Whether Prof. Swapan Garain has violated the conduct

     rules applicable to him and charges in the charge sheet?

     (vi)     Whether said WhatsApp group has used the logo of TISS

     anytime?


4.        The Petitioner forwarded representation dated 21st August,

2017 thereby praying that, no disciplinary action should be taken

against the Petitioner. The Petitioner had preferred a Writ Petition

No.10344 of 2017 in this Court thereby challenging the Order of his

suspension dated 29th March, 2016. During the pendency of the said

Writ Petition, the Respondent No.3 passed the impugned Order dated

6th September, 2017 imposing upon the Petitioner the punishment of

compulsory retirement. The Petitioner preferred an Appeal as per

Clause No.1.9.7. of the Bye-Laws of the Respondent No.1, however,

the same was not heard inspite of several requests from the

Petitioner. The Appellate Authority ultimately by an Order dated 16 th

January, 2018, rejected the Appeal filed by the Petitioner

mechanically, without application of mind. Hence, the present Writ

Petition is filed.




Manisha                                                             6/22
                                                         WP-1487-2018.doc


5.        Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that

the punishment of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon

the Petitioner, mainly on the charge that a few WhatsApp posts in

relation to the career opportunities by the members of the WhatsApp

group which was formed by ex-students of the Respondent No.1

amounts to trade and business on the part of the Petitioner is totally

perverse. He submitted that the domestic inquiry was not fair and

proper and the findings of the Inquiry Authority were perverse. He

contended that the Petitioner was a Guide for PhD student and that

the career of the Petitioner was ruined by passing of the impugned

Orders. The Petitioner was placed under prolonged suspension from

29th March, 2016 to 6th September, 2017. He submitted that the

WhatsApp messages referred to in the Inquiry Authority’s Report, if

read as it is, does not amount to any misconduct on the part of the

Petitioner. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that by

memorandum dated 31st July, 2017, Respondent No.3 forwarded to

the Petitioner the Inquiry Authority’s Report dated 22 nd July, 2017,

and called upon the Petitioner to submit his representation as to why

disciplinary action should not be taken against the Petitioner.

According to the Petitioner, the Respondent No.3 without considering


Manisha                                                            7/22
                                                                        WP-1487-2018.doc


the representation of the Petitioner had expressed his decision to

punish the Petitioner in violation of principles of natural justice and

therefore, this itself amounted to violation of Rule 15(2) of the CCS

(CCA) Rules, 1965 warranting all further action against the

Petitioner to be declared as null and void.


6.        The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contented

that the Petitioner was entitled to continue in his services up to his

age of 65 years as per his service conditions. The Petitioner, however,

at the age of 58 years has been penalised with punishment of

compulsory         retirement.       He     further       contended   that   it   is   a

disproportionate penalty and therefore the same deserves to be

quashed and set aside. In support of his contention, the learned

Counsel for the Petitioner relied upon the following judgments:


        (i)     Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer1
        (ii)    Ranjit Thakur Vs. Union of India 2
        (iii)   Managing Director, ECIL Vs. B. Karunakar 3
        (iv)    Kuldeep Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police & Ors.4
        (v)     Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank 5
        (vi)    M. V. Bijlani Vs. Union of India 6
1    (1985) 3 SCC 378
2    (1987) 4 SCC 611
3    (1993) 4 SCC 727
4    AIR 1999 S C 677: 1999 (2) SCC 10:1999 AIR SCW 129
5    (2009) 2 SCC 570
6    (2006) 5 SCC 88

Manisha                                                                            8/22
                                                            WP-1487-2018.doc


        (vii) H. P. State Electricity Board Ltd. Vs. Mahesh Dahiya7
        (viii) Jai Prakash Saini Vs. Managing Director, U. P. Cooperative
               Federation and Others8
        (ix)    Union of India Vs. Deepak Mali9
        (x)     Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal10


7.        Learned Counsel appearing for Respondents supported the

impugned orders. He submitted that due process of law was

followed. He submitted that the punishment which was imposed

upon the Petitioner was not shocking and was in consonance and in

proportion with the allegations proved against the Petitioner. He

submitted that the WhatsApp conversation clearly showed that

members were appealed to raise funds. He submitted that job

opportunities were provided and members/ job aspirants were

invited. He submitted that there was nothing on record to show that

permission from the Respondent No.1 was obtained for formation of

such group and its activities. He submitted that except their

statement that the Whatsapp Group was not for personal gain and no

financial or material transaction was visualised in this group, the

Petitioner has not brought anything to show to the contrary.


7    (2017) 1 SCC 768
8    (2026) INSC 305 : (2026) SCC OnLine SC 505
9    (2010) 2 SCC 222
10   (2013) 16 SCC 147

Manisha                                                               9/22
                                                              WP-1487-2018.doc


8.        Learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the act of

the Petitioner was nothing but creating parallel placement services.

He submitted that there was a conversation on 23rd February, 2016

which was a mail from Naukri.com for CSR opportunity in Godrej &

Boyz, Mumbai. He also submitted that there was an attempt to raise

funds. He invited our attention to the communication which was in

the nature of WhatsApp chat. He submitted that the memorandum

was issued to the Petitioner and a copy of the Report and findings of

the Inquiry Authority was given to the Petitioner and the Petitioner

was provided opportunity of 15 days to explain as to why

appropriate disciplinary action should not be taken against him in

accordance with Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. He relied

upon the following Judgments in support of his contention:


          (i) Deputy General Manager & Ors Vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava11
          (ii) Indian Oil Corporation & Ors. Vs. Ajit Kumar Singh12

          By relying upon the judgments mention above, the learned

Counsel for Respondents submitted that the power of judicial review

of Constitutional Courts is an evaluation of the decision making

process and not the decision itself. He submitted that the scope of

11 (2021) 2 SCC 612
12 (2023) 19 SCC 102

Manisha                                                                10/22
                                                             WP-1487-2018.doc


judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness

or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. In the

end he sought dismissal of the Writ Petition.


9.        We have heard the learned the Counsel appearing for the

parties. We have considered the documents on record. We have also

considered the citations which were cited across the Bench by the

learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the

Respondents. The Petitioner was in employment of the Respondent

No.1 with effect from 13th July, 1985 and was holding the post of

Professor in the Institute of the Respondent No.1. The Petitioner vide

an Order dated 29th March, 2016 was placed under suspension.


10.       Before we proceed further, it is relevant to note that the basic

charge against the Petitioner is that the Petitioner had formed a

WhatsApp group of the alumini of the Respondent No.1. The

allegations against the Petitioner is as under :

           “1. Dr. Swapan Garain, Professor, Centre for Social
           Justice and Governance, School of Social Work, Tata
           Institute of Social Sciences (hereinafter referred to as
           TISS), Deonar, Mumbai 400 088 has parallelly created a
           Whatsapp group styled as "Tissians Career Impact 2" and
           that too with Institute's official logo which is in clear
           violation of clause 21 of the Code of Conduct, applicable
           to TISS employees.

Manisha                                                               11/22
                                                             WP-1487-2018.doc


          2. Dr. Swapan Garain's attention is drawn to the letter
          of appointment no.Admn/2/85 dated 21 June 1985 and
          the fact that his appointment is governed by the
          Memorandum of Association and the Rules and
          Regulations of the Institute, under which he was under
          obligation not to engage in any trade, profession or any
          other activity while during the services of TISS

          3. Dr. Swapan Garain, by creating the parallel group
          for the placement services therefore is clear breach of his
          service conditions, which were specifically accepted by
          him. The Whatsapp group created by him is nothing but
          virtually a placement service soliciting students and
          alumni for his personal gains. The same also amounts to
          engaging in the business of placement services, which he
          being full time permanent faculty of the Institute is
          prohibited under the service rules applicable to him.

          4. Apart from the above, using logo of the Institute is
          itself is an infringement of the intellectual rights of the
          Institute and no one has any authority to use the same for
          any purpose except with the prior permission of the
          competent authority.

          5. Similarly, Dr. Swapan Garain, creating a Whatsapp
          group, soliciting students and alumni who are attached to
          the Institute and using the Institute's resources,
          knowledge, information is also in breach of accepted
          service conditions, besides a criminal offence under
          section 72 (Penalty for breach of confidentiality and
          privacy) of Information Technology Act, 2000 since he
          had access to the information pertaining to the students
          and alumni for which serious consequences can follow.
          The said information is also used as communication
          device through the computer network by using Institute's
          data which is clear breach of rule 11 of the Central Civil
          Services (Conduct) Rules 1964 as the Institute's employee
          is prohibited from directly or indirectly using, disclosing
          the official communication or any classified information
          acquired by him during his official duties to anyone.

Manisha                                                               12/22
                                                              WP-1487-2018.doc


          6. Dr. Swapan Garain, by creating a parallel 'Whatsapp'
          group and soliciting students, has acted in total
          dishonesty with the Institute for his personal gains The
          Institute has information that the mobile number on
          which the Whatsapp group is created belongs to him.

          7. The Institute has the requisite information about the
          communication solicited and exchanged by him and the
          invitee-members of the group wherein he has sought the
          students to become the members of the group.

          8. All the above acts of omissions and commissions
          amount to gross misconduct under CCS (Conduct) Rules
          of Government of India /University Grant Commission,
          which are applicable to the Institute. ”

          In light of the said allegations, the following charges were

levelled upon the Petitioner:


          “ i) Commission of an act of failure to maintain
          absolute integrity, devotion to duty and act unbecoming
          and subversive of discipline, and prejudicial to the
          interest of the Institute, being a faculty member is
          misconduct under sub rule (i), (ii) & (iii) respectively of
          Rule 3 (1) of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rule 1964
          applicable to the employees of the Institute.

          ii) Failure to maintain high ethical standard and
          honesty, misusing the official position in order to derive
          financial and material benefit for himself, commission of
          an act contrary to rules and regulations and established
          practices of the Institute and failure to perform and
          discharge the duties with high degree of professionalism
          and high dedication being a faculty member is
          misconduct under sub rule (vi), (xv), (xviii) & (xxi)
          respectively of Rule 3(1) of Central Civil Services
          (Conduct) Rules 1964 applicable to the employees of the
          Institute.

Manisha                                                                 13/22
                                                                WP-1487-2018.doc


          iii) Engaging in a trade or business while in the services
          of the Institute, which is a misconduct under the clause
          Rule 15 (1) (a) and (b) of Central Civil Services
          (Conduct) Rule 1964 applicable to the employees of the
          Institute and in clear breach of the provisions of the rules
          and regulations of the Institute as stated in your letter of
          appointment.

          iv) Using the Institute's official logo with your "Tissians
          Career Impact2" Whatsapp group amounts to using the
          Institute's intellectual property rights for your personal
          gains amounts to misconduct under sub rule (xx) of Rule
          3 and 11 of Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rule 1964
          applicable to the employees of the Institute and violation
          of clause 20 of the Code of Conduct for employees of
          TISS.

          v) Soliciting students, alumni and others to become
          part of your group and thereby soliciting business
          amounts to misuse. dishonesty with the Institute's aims,
          values, resources, breach of trust of your terms of
          appointment, which is a misconduct under clause 15 (d)
          Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rule 1964 applicable to
          the employees of the Institute and violation of clause 6 of
          the Code of Conduct. Apart from the above, the same also
          amounts to criminal breach of trust for which serious
          consequences can follow

          vi) All the above acts of omissions and commissions,
          causing damage to the reputation and credibility of the
          Institute, amounts to misconduct under sub rule (i), (ii),
          (iii), (vi), (xv), (xviii), (xx) & (xxi) of Rule 3(1) and Rule
          11 and Rule 15 (1) (a), (b) & (d) of CCS (Conduct)
          Rules, 1964 applicable to the employees of the Institute.”

11.       The WhatsApp communication which is the basis of the entire

charge, finds place on Page No.40 onwards of the Petition. The



Manisha                                                                    14/22
                                                            WP-1487-2018.doc


WhatsApp group is titled as ‘TISSians Career Impact2’. We have gone

through the said communication in detail. The case of the Petitioner

is that there exists a registered alumni association namely ‘TISS

Alums Association’ (TISSAA). The said Association was registered on

11th March, 2013 as a Society having registered office at TISS

Mumbai campus with approval of TISS Authorities. One of the basic

allegation is that the present WhatsApp group was a parallel group of

the placement services, soliciting students and alumni by the

Petitioner for his personal gains and the same also amounts to

engaging in business of placement services. Admittedly, the ‘TISSAA’

which was registered on 11th March, 2013 as a Society, has not filed

any complaint. This said registered Association has not made any

grievances. The said registered Association is neither a witness nor a

party to the entire proceedings. This being the position it is difficult

to understand as to what was the prejudice caused to the Respondent

No.1.


12.       We are aware of the limitations of this Court while exercising

the power of judicial review. However, this Court can definitely

interfere in the matter where the findings of the Inquiry Report as



Manisha                                                              15/22
                                                            WP-1487-2018.doc


well as the Respondent No.4 in the present case are perverse. In this

case, after perusal of the WhatsApp group, there is nothing to

indicate that the Petitioner was charging money for the placement

services. As a matter of fact, the chat dated 23 rd February, 2016

clearly shows that the said chat was only for those persons who were

looking for CSR opportunity in Mumbai. The chat makes it clear that

the person sending the chat does not want to apply but it could be

useful for any other person/member of the WhatsApp group. There is

information regarding online services offered by the Government of

India. This group was exclusively for the ‘TISSians’ from all streams.

As a matter of fact, the chat dated 24th February, 2016 clearly records

that the platform was exclusively for ‘TISSians career’. They made it

clear that the members of the chat who were not ‘TISSians’ should be

removed. This itself shows that there was no personal gain for the

Petitioner in any manner.


13.       The impugned Order records that the Petitioner has created the

WhatsApp group. There is no finding that, the funds which were

allegedly tried to be raised were used for the benefit of the Petitioner.

Although it is true that there was nothing on record to show that



Manisha                                                              16/22
                                                            WP-1487-2018.doc


permission from the Respondent No.1 was obtained for formation of

such group. Merely because permission was not obtained from the

Respondent No.1 would not be cogent ground for imposing such

excessive punishment upon the Petitioner. The finding that there was

a parallel placement service is totally perverse. There is nothing to

suggest that the placement services were offered for consideration

and further the said consideration was diverted for the benefit of the

Petitioner. As a matter of fact, the members of the WhatsApp group

merely shared the placement offers in the industry on the WhatsApp

Group. The Respondent No.4 has not bothered to consider the

explanation of the Petitioner. Admittedly, the logo was initially used

and was thereafter removed. WhatsApp being a social media

platform, merely starting a WhatsApp group and being member of

the WhatsApp group without there being further finding of any

personal gain diverted to the benefit of the Petitioner, in our view, the

punishment of ‘voluntarily retirement’ is grossly disproportionate.


14.       The Petitioner has correctly relied upon the judgment in the

matter of Ranjeet Thakur Vs. Union Of India13 to contend that the

penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the

13 (1987) 4 SCC 611

Manisha                                                              17/22
                                                           WP-1487-2018.doc


misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of

the misconduct would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. In the present case also, the punishment which is imposed,

namely, that of compulsory retirement is grossly disproportionate. In

the words of Lord Diplock “you cannot use a sledge-hammer to crack

a nut”. In this case, although it is true that the permission of

Respondent No.1 was not taken for the purpose of starting the

WhatsApp group, this itself would in our respectful opinion, not be

sufficient for imposing such a disproportionate punishment. The

Petitioner was a guide to many PhD students who were taking

education under him. The Petitioner is a man of repute.


16.       In these circumstances, we hold that the punishment of

compulsory retirement was quite disproportionate and therefore we

are inclined to interfere with the said punishment imposed upon the

Petitioner. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse. The said

punishment is so strikingly excessive that it cannot be allowed to be

remained uncorrected while exercising the powers of judicial review.

Merely starting a WhatsApp group by an employee without the

permission of the organisation itself is not sufficient to put an end to

long standing accomplished the career of a person. In this case, the

Manisha                                                             18/22
                                                             WP-1487-2018.doc


allegation that the Petitioner has started the WhatsApp group

without the permission of the Respondent No.1 even if accepted to

be correct on the face of it, was not sufficient to compulsorily retire

the Petitioner. We are guided in our aforesaid finding by the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of the

Omsairam Steels & Alloys (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Odisha,14


          33. It is here that we consider it appropriate to examine
          the applicability of the doctrine of proportionality. This
          doctrine has slowly but steadily found its way into this
          Court's jurisprudence. In Coimbatore District Central
          Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn. [Coimbatore District
          Central Coop. Bank v. Employees Assn., (2007) 4 SCC
          669 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 68] , albeit discussing the
          proportionality of the punishment imposed on striking
          workmen, this Court delineated the basis of the doctrine
          as follows : (SCC pp. 678-79, paras 18-19 & 21)

              18. “Proportionality” is a principle where the court is
              concerned with the process, method or manner in
              which the decision-maker has ordered his priorities,
              reached a conclusion or arrived at a decision. The
              very essence of decision-making consists in the
              attribution of relative importance to the factors and
              considerations in the case. The doctrine of
              proportionality thus steps in focus true nature of
              exercise—the elaboration of a rule of permissible
              priorities.

              19. de Smith states that “proportionality” involves
              “balancing test” and “necessity test”. Whereas the
              former (balancing test) permits scrutiny of excessive
              onerous penalties or infringement of rights or
14 (2024) 9 SCC 697

Manisha                                                               19/22
                                                            WP-1487-2018.doc


              interests and a manifest imbalance of relevant
              considerations, the latter (necessity test) requires
              infringement of human rights to the least restrictive
              alternative. [Judicial Review of Administrative Action
              (1995), pp. 601-605, para 13.085; see also Wade &
              Forsyth : Administrative Law (2005), p. 366.]


              21. The doctrine has its genesis in the field of
              administrative law. The Government and its
              departments, in administering the affairs of the
              country, are expected to honour their statements of
              policy or intention and treat the citizens with full
              personal consideration without abuse of discretion.
              There can be no “pick and choose”, selective
              applicability of the Government norms or unfairness,
              arbitrariness or unreasonableness. It is not
              permissible to use a “sledgehammer to crack a nut”.
              As has been said many a time, “where paring knife
              suffices, battle axe is precluded.”

                                                 (emphasis supplied)

17.       The judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Indian Oil Corporation (supra) relied by the Respondents takes a

view that if the conclusion or finding are of such a nature that no

reasonable person would ever have reached the said findings and

where, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the

disciplinary authority, the findings are perverse or suffer from patent

error on the face of record, the power of judicial review can be

exercised.



Manisha                                                              20/22
                                                            WP-1487-2018.doc


18.       Whilst we were pondering upon the extent to which the back

wages could be given to the petitioner, the learned Counsel

appearing for the petitioner on instruction of his client fairly

submitted that his client would be happy if 50% of the back wages

would be granted. Taking into consideration the aforesaid statement,

coupled with the fact that the petitioner was not in employment from

29 March 2016, till attending the age of superannuation, we are

inclined to reinstate the petitioner with 50% of back wages.


19.       For the reasons mentioned above, we proceed to pass the

following Order:


                                  ORDER


             (i)    Writ Petition No.1487 of 2018 is allowed.


             (ii)   The impugned Order dated 29th March, 2016

             passed by the Respondent No.3 in placing the Petitioner

             under suspension w.e.f. 29th March, 2016 till 6th September,

             2017; the impugned Order dated 6 th September, 2017

             passed by the Respondent No.3 imposing upon the

             Petitioner the punishment of the compulsory retirement



Manisha                                                              21/22
                                                         WP-1487-2018.doc


          from the services w.e.f. 6th September, 2017; and the

          impugned Order dated 16th January, 2018 passed by the

          Respondent No.2 are hereby quashed and set aside


          (iii)   The Respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed to pay 50%

          back wages to the Petitioner from the date of his

          termination till the date of his superannuation with

          continuity of services and all consequential benefits. The

          retirement benefits be recomputed accordingly. Arrears, if

          any, be paid within a period of 3 months from the date of

          uploading of this Order.


          (iv)    There shall be no order as to costs.




(SANDESH D.PATIL, J.)                            (M. S. KARNIK, J.)




Manisha                                                           22/22