R PARAMASIVAM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records relating to the order passed by the first respondent in Lr.No.7(709)/95/D )(Pen.A & AC) Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi dated 31.7.1996 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent in No.14399137/Q/T.VII/2/PEN-2, dated 1.11.1999, to quash the same and to consequently direct the respondents to grant pension benefits to the petitioner herein from the date of discharge from Military service, viz., 19.8.1993.

(2.) The petitioner was enrolled in the Army as Technical Assistant on 13.12.1987 in the Regiment of Artillery at Artillery Centre, Nasik Road Camp. The Medical Board of doctors having found the petitioner physically incapacitated, vide its report dated 17.7.1993 recommended the petitioner to be invalidated out of service for the cause of " Generalised Seizure Code No.345". He was discharged from service as an invalidated man on 19.8.1993.

(3.) It is trite law that the court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. Therefore, unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference, vide United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar,(2003) 4 SCC 364.