Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal by special leave filed by the Union of India against an order of a Tribunal. The Court granted leave and called for the record to satisfy itself whether the Tribunal was justified in giving the direction in the impugned order. Upon perusal of the record, the Court observed that except during the relevant period, either previous or subsequent to that period, the first respondent had an outstanding career and the records were very good. The integrity of the officer had not been doubted. In light of these circumstances, the Court held that it was not a case warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed. No arguments or precedents were recorded in the order. The decision rested on the discretionary nature of Article 136 jurisdiction and the absence of any ground to disturb the Tribunal's direction.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Supreme Court Jurisdiction - Article 136 of the Constitution of India - Discretionary Interference with Tribunal Orders - The Supreme Court examined the record to determine whether the Tribunal's direction was justified and found that except during the relevant period, the first respondent had an outstanding career and very good records, with integrity never doubted. Held that it was not a case warranting interference under Article 136 and dismissed the appeal (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Tribunal was justified in giving the direction in the impugned order and whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 of the Constitution
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that it was not a case warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution because the first respondent's career record was outstanding and integrity had not been doubted.
Law Points
- Supreme Court's discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution should not be exercised when the Tribunal's direction is found to be justified
- an officer's outstanding career record and unquestioned integrity militate against interference under Article 136
- extraordinary remedy under Article 136 is not intended to correct every alleged error unless manifest injustice is shown
