In a recent case of Civil Appeal No. 3959 of 2024, the Supreme Court directed for the courts to respect administrative decisions and not substitute their views unless there is a clear violation of principles or procedures.
The case revolves around a dispute concerning the performance appraisal report of a senior IAS officer serving in the Government of Haryana. The Accepting Authority, the Chief Minister of Haryana, revised the officer’s overall grade from ‘9.92’ to ‘9’, which led to a challenge by the officer before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT). The High Court set aside the CAT order, emphasizing practical constraints faced by the officer and the non-decision on his representation.
The main issue in this case was whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the CAT order regarding the revision of the officer’s performance appraisal report.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, emphasizing the importance of administrative expertise and restraint in judicial interference with administrative decisions. The cases of Dev Dutt v. Union of India, (2008) 8 SCC 725 and State of Jharkhand v. Linde India Ltd., (2022) 107 GSTR 381. The Court directed the Accepted Authority to decide on the officer’s representation within 60 days. The main principle drawn upon was the need for courts to respect administrative decisions and not substitute their views unless there is a clear violation of principles or procedures.
CASE NAME:
THE STATE OF HARYANA v. ASHOK KHEMKA & ANR. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3959 OF 2024 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 13972 of 2019]
NAME: Sreenishanka Vadiraj, 6th sem, BBA-LLB(Hons.)PES University, Bangalore, Intern under Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments