Administrative law Foundations and Framework of Administrative Law: Evolution from Classical Philosophers to Contemporary Judicial Doctrines – Exploring Rule of Law, Separation of Powers, Natural Justice, Delegated Legislation, and the Constitutional Dyna

Foundations and Framework of Administrative Law: Evolution from Classical Philosophers to Contemporary Judicial Doctrines – Exploring Rule of Law, Separation of Powers, Natural Justice, Delegated Legislation, and the Constitutional Dynamics of Governance in India, the United Kingdom, and the United States through Theoretical Insights and Landmark Supreme Court Decisions.
This document provides an in-depth exploration of Administrative Law, tracing its intellectual and practical development from Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, and Locke to the modern constitutional systems of governance. It examines the historical evolution, theories, and objectives of administrative law, emphasizing its independent existence and its role in safeguarding citizens against arbitrary state power, as articulated by Prof. Upendra Baxi. The study outlines the relationship between administrative and constitutional law, contrasting their purposes—anti-majoritarian and anti-authoritarian—and exploring the Doctrine of Rule of Law from A.V. Dicey’s perspective alongside the Doctrine of Separation of Powers by Montesquieu.
It further categorizes administrative actions—legislative, quasi-judicial, and ministerial—and discusses delegated legislation, judicial controls, and the principle of natural justice, reinforced through key cases such as Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, A.K. Kraipak v. Union of India, and Ridge v. Baldwin. The role of Article 310 and 311, administrative tribunals, and judicial review are highlighted as mechanisms ensuring accountability, transparency, and fairness in governance. Through a synthesis of theoretical doctrines, legal principles, and case law, this unit presents administrative law as a cornerstone of modern democracy—balancing efficiency, justice, and individual liberty.

1. SOCRATES , PLATO, ARISTOTLE, ST THOMAS AQUINAS, GROTIUS, LOCKE ,
ROUSSEAU.
ROMAN CIVILIZATION , NATURAL JUSTICE
BRITISH COLONIES AND WRITERS
–Dr F.J Port 1929-Book –Admn law
--Sir Ivor Jennings
---A.V Dicey –ABSENCE OF DISCRETION , EQUALITY, RIGHTS FROM CUSTOM -
UK COMMON LAW –OTHERS NATIONS THEIR CONSTITUTION DROIT
ADMINISTRATIF –FRENCH
Administrative law –Sense of direction
Theories &History & Object

2. INTERNATIONAL
INDEPENDENT EXISTENCE OF ADMIN LAW IN LEGAL FRATERNITY IN
AMERICA
PROF UPENDRA BAXI –PROTECTION OF THE LITTLE MAN FROM ARBITRARY
EXERCISE OF PUBLIC POWER -POVERTY , ILLITERACY. IGNORANCE -
RECOURSE TO COURTS
IT IS A LAW , PART OF PUBLIC LAW , NOT A LEGISLATION

3. Relationship between Administrative Law & Constitutional Law
•Constitutional-Anti –Majoritarian
▪Administrative law -Anti -Authoritarian
▪Admin law exercise of constitutional power is limited-by the norms , fairness, natural law
▪Tested against Constitutional law
▪Common law of constitutional law –Public centric
▪State Ethics
▪Holland –CL –Government at rest , AL-Government in action

4. Doctrine of Rule of Law,
DERIVED –FRENCH PHRASE –LAPRINCIPE DE LEGALITE-PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY
LAW OF GOD –PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
A,V DICEY---ABSENCE A.V Dicey –ABSENCE OF DISCRETION ,
EQUALITY, RIGHTS FROM CUSTOM -UK COMMON icey –ABSENCE
MAN BELOW THE LAW
DUE PROCESS CLAUSE
MANEKA GANDHI CASE

5. ARISTOTLE –LOCKE –MONTESQUIEU
1.LEGISLATIVE 2. EXECUTIVE . 3. JUDICIARY
2.MONTESQUIEU 1748–when the legislative and executive powers are
united in the same person / body , there can be no liberty.
3.Brandeis J –Aim is not to promote efficiency but to preclude the
exercise of arbitrary power, to protect people from Autocracy by
means of inevitable friction due of distribution of powers .
Doctrine of Separation of powers

6. Dicey –US Approach
TheAmericanapproachtoadministrativelawisdenotedbythedefinitionpropoundedbyDavis.Accordingto
him,administrativelawisthelawconcerningthepowersandproceduresofadministrativeagencies,including
especiallythelawgoverningjudicialreviewofadministrativeaction.Itdoesnotincludetheenormousmassof
substantivelawproducedbytheagencies.Anadministrativeagency,accordingtohim,isagovernmental
authority,otherthanacourtandotherthanalegislativebody,whichaffectstherightsofprivateparties
througheitheradjudicationorrule-making.Theemphasisinthedefinitionisonjudicialcontrolof
administrativeagencies.Butothercontrolmechanisms,liketheparliamentarycontrolofdelegatedlegislation,
controlthroughadministrativeappeals,andthroughtheombudsmantypeinstitution,arequiteimportantand
significantandneedtobestudiedforafullercomprehensionofadministrativelaw.

7. Dicey
Diceyhasdefinedadministrativelawasdenotingthatportionofanation'slegalsystemwhichdeterminesthelegal
statusandliabilitiesofallStateofficials,whichdefinestherightsandliabilitiesofprivateindividualsintheirdealings
withpublicofficials,andwhichspecifiestheprocedurebywhichthoserightsandliabilitiesareenforced.The
definitionisnarrowandrestrictiveinsofarasitleavesoutofconsiderationmanyaspectsofadministrativelaw,e.g.,
itexcludesmanyadministrativeauthorities,whichstrictlyspeaking,arenotofficialsoftheStatessuchaspublic
corporations;italsoexcludesproceduresofadministrativeauthoritiesortheirvariouspowersandfunctions,ortheir
controlbyParliamentorinotherways,Dicey'sformulationrefersprimarilytooneaspectofadministrativelaw,i.e.
controlofpublicofficials.Diceyformulatedhisdefinitionwiththedroitadministratifinview.

8. FOUR DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES
1.Exclusively principle –Structural Division
2.Functional principle –prohibits amalgamation
3.Check and Balance principle
4.Mutuality
The same person should not form part of more than one organ and one organ should not exercise the functions of
another organ
Indira Nehru Gandhi 1975 Supp SC , CJ Ray –In Indian Constitution only a broader sense of separation of powers
only , Not a rigid like in USA or the Australian Constitution .
Kesavananda Bharati case AIR 1973 SC 1461-Separation of powers is a part of the basic structure of the Constitution

9. Classification of ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
1.RULE MAKING ACTION OR QUASI LEGISLATIVE
State of Punjab v. Tehal Singh 2002 2SCC7-where the provisions of a Statute provide
for the legislative activity-rule of conduct etc
2. RULE –DECISION ACTION OR QUASI JUDICIAL ACTION
Disciplinary proceedings against employees, students , cancellation , suspension
revocation of license, permission, goods , gratuity etc-
Case facts , committee , investigation , right to be heard , reasoned decision .

10. CLASSIFICATION ;-
A,K Kraipak v. UOI 1969 2SCC 262-Selection for Government services should act Judicially
Indian National Congress (1) v. Institute of Social welfare 2002 5 SCC685-Function of Election
Commission to register a political party –is quasi judicial or administrative ? Court said it is quasi judicial
as it has to act under the Act and make an enquiry also , summon witnesses then it is quasi judicial-Part of
administrative law
3. RULE –APPLICATION ACTION OR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Issuing directions , making a reference to a tribunal under any Act, deportation , granting sanction,
allotment, functions of selection committee, etc
A,K Kraipak v. UOI 1969 2SCC 262-Selection for Government services should act Judicially

11. CLASSIFICATION
4. MINISTRIAL OR ONLY ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION -Office functions , ministerial actions, collection of
tax, revenue, making a report etc
JUDICIAL Behaviour in Administrative Discretion-1. Control at the stage of delegation of discretion –if the
statute confers vague and wide discretionary power –ultra vires of the Constitution 2. Control at the stage of
Exercise of Discretion –If there is abuse of power. S.R Venkataraman v. UOI 1979 2 SCC 491-prematurely
retired in public interest under Rule 56( j)(i) on attaining 50 years –no investigation or application of mind –
SC quashed . In USA –Judicial Review / Administrative Procedure Act 1946 in section 10-Court of Law
should set aside actions , findings which are Arbitrary , Abuse or not in Accordance with the LAW
English case-Padfield v. Minister of Agriculture Fisheries Food 1968AC997-Milk price –contended that
the milk producers near London had high quality still same price –minister told to register but did not do as he
feared create political problem –HOUSE OF LORDS UNSATISFIED AT THE MINISTRIAL FUNCTION

12. ADMINISTRATIVE RULE MAKING
Administrative Legislation –widening fronts in a MODERN STATE –
welfare , law has become highly technical , law to meet emergency
situations.
Title-based classification : 1. –General Clauses Act 1897-Rule made in
exercise of power conferred by enactment. 2. Regulations –Delegated
Legislation , decisions , orders ,acts etc . 3. Bye-laws –Rules by Semi Govt.
4. Directions by Govt. 5. Scheme –lay down the procedure

13. ADMINISTRATIVE RULE MAKING
Discretion based or Conditional / contingent/ subordinate Legislation –Field v. Clark
36L Ed 294: 143 US 649 ( 1891)-the impugned Act authorized the President by
proclamation to suspend the operation of an Act permitting free introduction into US of
certain products –US Supreme court upheld the Act as President was a mere agent –no
application of mind by him needed .
POINTS-1. Statute enacted by Legislation . 2. Act enforced , but power to withdraw or
apply to a given area is given . 3. Power exercised upon the Delegate’s satisfaction on
objective facts –this attracts principles of Natural Justice

14. ADMINISTRATIVE RULE MAKING-DELEGATED LEGISLATION
IN UK –Parliament is Supreme so no Constitutional hurdles . In USA –Separation of
powers –legislative powers cannot be delegated to Administrative official but some
essential powers are delegated and these powers are not legislative in nature –but there
also it is understood there are some functions which might overlap.
Edward Mills Co. Ltd v. State of Ajmer 1955 SC –the impugned Act authorized the
admn. agency to set up minimum wages for certain industries specified in the schedule,
empowered it to vary the schedule by adding other industries to the list . SC held valid
stating the legislative intention is clear in the Act .

15. ADMINISTRATIVE RULE MAKING-DELEGATED LEGISLATION
EXCESSIVE DELEGATION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL –First case where SC struck down on excessive delegation -
Hamdard Davakhana case 1960 SC-Act laid down list of which advt. prohibited and more could be included –SC
struck down the Act –no policy guidance –excessive delegation
In Darshan Lal Mehra v. Union of India 1992 SC, held section 172(2) UP Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam 1959 as
constitutional . This section had authorized the municipalities to impose taxes mentioned in the Act ‘ for the purpose of
the Act’. The court held it laid sufficient policy to impose tax.

16. DELEGATED LEGISLATION
1. The power of delegation in empowered in Article 245 of the Constitution –Compulsive ,
Necessity due to the needs of the Modern State.
2. Essential Legislative functions cannot be delegated by the Legislature –Laying the policy The
legislature should frame the policy , Bill in the parliament , Act –preamble –object –title –
scheme –clauses –binding part of the Act.
3. Non Essentials legislative functions can be delegated
4. Constitutionality of the delegation to be tested case to case –Courts have given very wide
interpretation to enable delegation –It should be consistent and within the PARENT ACT

17. DELEGATED LEGISLATION
5. The Delegate cannot have more legislative powers than that of the delegator –Indian Oil
Corpn v. Municipal Corpn Jullandar 1993 1 SCC 333
6. It must not be unreasonable –not violate procedural safeguards if provided in the Parent Act
7. The delegation of power by an administrative officer to his sub-ordinate does not divest of
his power .
8. The court may take into consideration –proportionality –especially in cases involving
violation of public interest where this new doctrine may produce better results

18. DELEGATED LEGISLATION
9. If the parent Act is repealed then notification issued under it would also stand
repealed unless saved by the repealing Act .
10. Rules validly made by the Administrative authority becomes part of the Act
11. Power to repeal and amend cannot ne delegated
12 Court decisions cannot be nullified by administrative authority by changing its rules
–Contempt of court
13 Retrospectivity of rules by Admn authority only if allowed by the Parent Act

19. Controls
1.Parliamentary control-within the parent act
2.Procedural control-drafting , consultation , publishing , gazette,
enforcement
3.Judicial control-ultra vires constitution, enabling act

20. Administration -Government in action
Legislative function –rule making
Administrative function –implementation of the rules
Judicial function –Quasi judicial –Tribunals , Domestic committee,

21. Modern state
Centralized Administration:, Rule of Law:, act within the bounds of
established legal principles and procedures -not arbitrarily.,
Separation of Powers:
the modern state -blurs lines, with the executive branch taking on
quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial functions.

22. MODERN STATE
Welfare State: involved in promoting social and economic well-being,
necessitating QUICK AND EFFECTIVE administrative actions in various sectors.
Accountability AND TRANSPARENCY AND Control:, preventing abuse of power,
and ensuring redress for individuals affected by administrative actions.
NEW CHANGES KEEPING WITH THE TIMES , ENTREPRENEURSHIP,
QUICK REDRESSAL AND QUICK DECISION MAKING

23. Natural Justice-RULE OF LAW
In order to seek protection from excesses of man , man appealed to GOD ,
who alone could save and to the laws of GOD all temporal laws and
actions must conform –This is the Origin of Natural Justice .
1.Supremacy of the law.
2.Equality before the law.
3.Predominance of legal spirit: the court should be free from impartiality
and external influence.

24. NJ
Dicey’sRuleofLawAccordingtoProf.Dicey,rulesoflawcontainsthreeprinciplesorithasthree
meaningsasstatedbelow:1.SupremacyofLaw:TheFirstmeaningoftheRuleofLawisthat'nomanis
punishableorcanlawfullybemadetosufferinbodyorgoodsexceptforadistinctbreachoflaw
establishedintheordinarylegalmannerbeforetheordinarycourtsoftheland2.EqualitybeforeLaw:the
SecondmeaningoftheRuleofLawisnomanisabovelaw3.PredominanceofLegalSpiritortheThird
meaningoftheRuleofLawisthegeneralprinciplesoftheconstitutionaretheresultofjuridicaldecisions
determiningfilerightsofprivatepersonsinparticularcasesbroughtbeforetheCourt

25. Maneka Gandhi Case
ManekaGandhiwasrequiredtosurrenderherpassportwithin7daysfromthereceiptofthatletter.ManekaGandhi
immediatelyaddressedalettertotheregionalpassportofficerrequestingacopyofastatementaboutthereasonfor
makingtheorderasprovidedinsec.10(5).AreplywassentbythegovernmentofIndia,ministryofexternalaffairson
6
th
july1977statingthatthegovernmentdecided“intheinterestofgeneralpublic”nottofurnishheracopyof
statementofreasonsforthemakingoftheorder.ManekaGandhinowfilledawritpetitionunderarticle32ofthe
constitutionofIndiachallengingactionofgovernmentinimpoundingherpassportanddecliningtogivereasonsfor
doingso.Shechallengessec10(3)(c)unconstitutionalbecauseit’saviolationoffundamentalrightunderart.14,19(1).
Thecourtsaidthatsection10(3)(c)ofpassportact,1967isvoidbecauseitviolatesarticle14ofIndianconstitution
becauseitconfersvagueandundefinedpowertothepassportauthority.itisviolativeofArticle14oftheConstitution
sinceitdoesn’tprovideforanopportunityfortheaggrievedpartytobeheard.ItwasalsoheldviolativeofArticle21
sinceitdoesnotaffirmtotheword“procedure”asmentionedintheclause,andthepresentprocedureperformedwas
theworstpossibleone.TheCourtaskedthatpostdecisionalhearingbegiventoher

26. STAGES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
1. SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
2. SUPREME POWER OF GOD –DIVINE LAW –NATURAL LAW –NARURAL JUSTICE
3. CONSCIOUNESS
4.BONHAM’S CASE 1610 8 Co Rep 107: 77 ER638 –Court quashed the decision of the administrative authority as it could
impose fine in exercise of its discretion and can keep half of the fine imposed for its own use violates the principle of NJ
RIDGE V. BALDWIN 1964 AC 40-The appellant , a constable , thought to be negligent in his duty , was dismissed without
hearing . The House of Lords held that the power of dismissal could not be exercised without hearing .
BAGG ‘ S CASE 1615 –NOT GIVE HEARING
BENTLEY ‘S CASE ( RV. Chancellor of Cambridge 1748-Cambridge University cancelled the Degree of the petitioner without
hearing

27. STAGES OF NATURAL JUSTICE
5. DARK AGES –REFORMATION PERIOD –ENLIGHTENMENT .
Secularism –Individualism –democracy
Roman –Jus Naturale –RULE OF LAW . In India –Constitution –Article
31, 14 , 311
6. Anglo-American Courts for 400 years have actively applied 2 principles
of Natural Justice

28. RULE AGAINST BIAS AND HEAR THE OTHER SIDE
ANGLO AMERICAN COURTS USED 2 PRINCIPLES
1. NEMO IN PROPRIA CAUSA JUDEX , ESSE DEBET, -No one should be made a judge in his own case or rule against bias
2. AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM -Hear the other party or the rule of fair hearing or that no one should be condemned unheard
Survival of the Fittest is overruled by Rule against Bias and hear
the other side as Prejudice can be Conscious or unconscious
Cra

29. RULE AGAINST BIAS
CRAWFORD BAYLEY CO V U OF INDIA 2006 SCC
Officer concerned personal connection had taken an earlier decision , so possibly could be interested in
supporting it –to avoid partiality and ensure PUBLIC CONFIDENCE
1.PERSONAL BIAS –S.P KAPOOR V, STATE OF AP-SC quashed the selection list where he was in the
committee. Real test –whether a litigant could reasonably apprehend that a bias
might have operated against him in the final decision –REASONABLE MAN

30. RULE AGAINST BIAS
2. PECUNIARY BIAS –Judge or decision maker has financial or proprietary
interest in that case
3. SUBJECT MATTER BIAS –R V. DEAL JUSTICES 1881-the magistrate was
member of a society dealing with cruelty to animals. He was declared not
disqualified to try a case of cruelty against animals.

31. RULE AGAINST BIAS
3. DEPARTMENTAL BIAS –Nageshwar Rao case -secretary initiated
the policy of nationalizing the road transport , he gave the
hearing to petitioner –dept bias
Franklin v. minister of town and country planning 1848 ac 87 hl-
appellant challenged that no fair hearing as the minister had
given in his speech that he wants to carry out a daring exercise
in town planning . –pre -conceived notion of the policy –court did
not agree on the technical ground that minister not doing quasi
judicial function.

32. AUDI ALTERUM PARTEM –RULE OF FAIR HEARING
1.RIGHT TO NOTICE-NOTITIA –BEING KNOWN -
TIME , PLACE, NATURE OF HEARING , COMMITTEE , STATEMENT OF CHARGES ,
PARTICULAR PENALTY OR ACTION MIGHT FOLLOW
RIGHT TO PRESENT HIS /HER CASE AND EVIDENCE / ORAL ADDUCING –CROSS EXAM–
LEGAL REPRESENTATION NOT ALLOWED NORMALLY
REPORT OF THE ENQUIRY TO BE SHOWN TO THE OTHER PARTY
REASONED DECISIONS

33. DOMESTIC ENQUIRY
NAND KISHORE PRASAD V. STATE OF BIHAR 1978 3 SCC 366-APPLELLANT WAS A CLERK
IN THE DISTRICT MAGIS OFFICE –PROSECTED FOR EMBEZZLING A CERTAIN AMOUNT IN
A CRIMINAL COURT BUT ACQUITTED. THEN DOMESTIC ENQUIRY INITIATED , FOUND
GUILTY AND REMOVED FROM SERVICE . HE FILED WRIT IN SC. SC SAID THIS WAS NOT A
CASE OF NO EVIDENCE BUT OF EVIDENCE INADEQUATE IN CRIMINAL COURT BUT
SUFFICIENT AT THE DOMESTIC ENQUIRY LEVEL . SO ORDER NOT TO BE INTERFERED .

34. ENQUIRIES UNDER AN ACT
A.K ROY 1982 SC –NATIONAL SECURITY ACT 1980HELD THAT IF THE ACT DISALLOWS LEGAL
REPRESENTATION TO A DETENU THEN THE STATE ALSO CANNOT TAKE THE HELP OF A LAWYER
UNION OF INDIA V. E. BASHYAN 1988 SC –QUESTION WAS WHETHER SECOND SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO CHECK
THE ANOMALIES IN THE ENQUIRY REPORT WAS SECOND SHOW CAUSE TO DECIDE THE PUNISHMENT COMES
UNDER 42
ND
AMENDMENT ACT 1976 UNDER WHICH THIS SECOND NOTICE WAS ABOLISHED FOR GOVT
SERVANTS .
DEV DUTTA 2008 SC –GOOD DECISION MAKING MEANS REASONED DECISIONS . REITERATED IN KRANTI CASE
2010 SC
IN US SEC 8 (b)of the admin pro act 1946-admin agencies to provide reasons
The officer who hears should decide not his superior officer

35. Post decisional Hearing
MANEKA GANDHI 1978 SC –PASSPORT IMPOUNDED
SWADESHI COTTON 1987SC-GOVT. TAKING OVER THE COMPANY WITHOUR
HEARING . LATER POST DECISIONAL HEARING WAS GIVE SO DECISION WAS
VALIDATED BY COURT
CANARA BANK 2005 SC –BANK OFFICER DISMISSED WITHOUT PRE HEARING
. LATER POST DECISIONAL HEARING GIVEN. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY
PREJUDICE ON THE OFFICER AS SHE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE
BANK STAND . OTHERWISE THE COURT SAID IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED

36. EXCEPTIONS TO THE RULE OF N J
EMERGENCY SITUATION
CASES OF CONFIDENDIALITY OF LISTS –JUDGES APPOINTMENT
WHERE NO RIGHT OF THE PERSON IS INFRINGED UNDER LAW OR COMMON LAW –LIMITED VACANCIES
CANCELLED AFTER THE TERM FIXED IS VALID –THE DELHI RENT CONTROL ACT 1958-J.H VOHRA CASE
BALCO CASE 2002 SC–THE WORKERS INTERFERED IN GOVT POLICY OF DISINVESTMENT –NOT ALLOWED
DECISION RENDERED IN VIOLATION OF N J IS VOID-YUNUS KHAN CASE 2010 SC –THE INITIAL STAGE
VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE CANNOT BE VALIDATED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE EVEN IF FAIRNESS
OF THAT APPELLATE IS BEYOND DISPUTE. IT BECOMES VOID ONLY BY A COURT TILL THEN IT IS VALID

37. ARTICLE 310----–GOVT SERVANTS
1.TENURE OF OFFICE –ARTICLE 310 LAYS DOWN EVERY PERSON –DEFENCE , CIVIL SEVICE OF THE
UNION , ALL INDIA SERVICE OR OTHERS UNDER UNION HOLDS OFFICE AT THE PLEASURE OF THE
PRESIDENT , IN STATE –GOVERNOR .
2.THOUGH PLEASURE BUT SUBJECTED TO 311. THUS CIVIL SERVANTS CANNOT BE TERMINATED AT
PLEASURE UNLESS 311 IS FOLLOWED
3.DEFENCE PERSONNEL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY WHERE PRESIDENT HAS ABSOLUTE PLEASURE
TO TERMINATE. THIS PLEASURE CAN BE INVOKED AT ANY TIME STAGE OF INQUIRY ON BEING
SATISFIED THAT CONTINUANCE OF ANY OFFICER IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF SECURITY OF THE
STATE. COURT CANNOT INTERFERE IN VIEW OF NATIONAL SECURITY AND SAFETY -UNION OF INDIA
V. S.P. SHARMA2014 6 SCC 351

38. CIVIL POST UNDER 311
KENDRIYA VIDYALAYA SANGATHAN V. ARUN KUMAR 2007 SCC -CIVIL POST –SC HELD A P.T.TEACHER
DOES NOT HOLD A CIVIL POST
311 APPLIES TO BOTH PERMANENT / TEMPORARY CIVIL SERVANTS
ANY ORDER OF COMPULSORY RETIREMENT / DISMISSAL/ SUSPENSION / SHOULD FOLLOW N J
ESPECIALLY IF IT IS LOOKS LIKE A PUNISHMENT.
UNION OF INDIA V. K.K.DHAWAN 1993 sc-officer in exercise of judicial or quasi judicial acts
negligently to give undue favour to another is not acting as a judge , then he can be
subjected to disciplinary action

39. EXCEPTIONS TO RULE OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND
1.CIVIL SERVANT IS DISMISSED ON CONVICTION IN A CRIMINAL
CASE IN COURT
2.WHERE IT IS IMPRACTICABLE TO HOLD ENQUIRY –WHERE THERE
IS CHAOS OR IMMEDIATE DECISION NEED BE TAKEN
3.PRESIDENT TAKES A DECISION IN THE INTEREST OF SECURITY OF
STATE

40. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS
PARLIAMENT ENACTED THE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS ACT 1985 -CENTRE AND STATE
THE TRIBUNAL HAS GOT THE JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT IN SERVICE MATTER OF JUDICIAL
REVIEW
THE ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR ANY APPEAL OR REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL EXCEPT A
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BEFORE SC. THIS WAS INVALIDATE BY SUPREME COURT AS JUDUCIAL
REVIEW BY THE HIGH COURTS CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY. L.CHANDRA CASE 1997 SC -BASIC
STRUCTURE OF CONSTITUTION