INTRODUCTION
“Administrative decision making” is a term that has been used interchangeably with “administrative adjudication”. Presently, most of the decisions with respect to personal or property rights of the people are derived from administrative agencies exercising adjudicatory powers and not from courts. It has been observed that administrative functions and judicial functions were almost always intricately bound to one another with regards to organs of the government. However, later on the concept of “separation of powers” were applied on these organs. It is also to be noted that presently we observe somewhat of an overlapping of these powers between various organs of the government, a consequence of which is that the administration now holds some judicial power.
NEED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
We shall briefly discuss the need for administrative adjudication as follows:
1) Administrative decision making was required to achieve the principle of socialism that our nation strives to adhere along-with its intensive form of government. The government focused on education, public health, social security, transport, industrialization, agriculture and national assistance; and these programs often required determination of legal questions involved with the assistance of law courts due to their ritualistic and individualistic approach. Thus, administrative a\decision making was the only plausible answer for social control over this area.
2) Administrative decision making was practical as this system of adjudication was cheap, informal and quick.
3) The need to explore new public law standards based on moral and social principles away from individualistic norms developed by courts was another reason for the increased need for administrative adjudication.
4) Administrative adjudication puts more focus on preventive justice rather than punitive, and this is a growing demand of modern democratic societies.
5) Administrative adjudication represents a functional approach to law. For example, in cases with regards to licensing, nationalization, fixing priorities and planning action, the decision is dependent not upon law but also upon policy considerations.
6) Administrative decision making system supplements the existing overburdened justice system.
PROBLEMS OF ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION
Administrative justice has been riddled with controversies in India. Some of the problems regarding administrative adjudication has been briefly discussed below:
1) Number and complexity: A large number of administrative agencies having adjudicatory powers have blossomed since 1947, each such agency containing their own machinery for decision making. A large number of parallel bodies adjudicating on the same kind of dispute results in different decisions. This complicates the task of uniform application of uniform principles and gives rise to arbitrariness.
2) Large variety of procedures
Every administrative agency has its own procedure, so the existence of a wide variety of administrative agencies leads to a bewildering variety of procedures resulting into uncertainty. For example, at times procedure is provided by the Act under which the agency is constituted, but at times the agency has discretion to develop its own procedure, or sometimes the agency is dependent on the powers of the civil court in the matters pertaining to compelling attendance and production of documents. However, in most cases, the agency is required to only adhere to minimum procedure of the principles of natural justice. Since the principles lack uniformity and rigidity, its uncertain application results into arbitrariness.
3) Unsystematic system of appeal
No uniform system of appeal exists with regards to administrative adjudications. Also, the period for allowing appeals vary from one agency to the other. However, at times certain Acts do not provide for an appeal thereby making the decision of the administrative agency final. It is necessary that at least one appeal should be granted for matters pertaining to question of fact to a higher administrative body and at least one appeal should be granted for matters pertaining to question of law to a court of law.
4) Unpredictability of decisions
Since administrative agencies do not follow the doctrine of precedent, they are not bound to even follow their own decisions. This results into incoherence in development of law and violation of the principles of natural justice.
5) Combination of Functions
All the disciplinary proceedings the functions of a prosecutor and a judge are either combined into one person or one department, except with regards to civil servants. Also, The Administrative Procedure Act, 1946 states that no official having investigative or prosecuting function can participate in decision making.
6) No Evidence Rule
The technical rules contained in Evidence Act, 1872 do not apply in India with regards to administrative adjudications. A judge made rule of no evidence is used instead. The Supreme Court explained this rule in the case of State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh, where it was observed that, where there was some evidence or no evidence, not in a technical sense but in a common sense way as a man of understanding and worldly wisdom would accept. In this case, the sufficiency of evidence in proof of findings of a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. In the case of Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. V. Workmen, the Supreme Court held that administrative tribunals are not bound by the strict rules of evidence and procedure and they follow the principles of natural justice. However, this does not mean that they can act on something which is not an evidence at all.
7) Official Perspective
Official perspective is inherent in administrative adjudication. There is an existence of presumption of guilt in place of presumption of innocence in any disciplinary proceeding and actions are taken on the basis of expediency and extra-legal concerns. The projection
of official perspective is even more concerning as administrative agencies are not required to adhere to standard rules of procedure and evidence.
8) Official Bias
Administrative agencies are infested with the problem of official bias or departmental bias. Official bias or departmental bias mainly exists due to policy bias or pecuniary bias.
9) Plea Bargaining
Plea bargaining is a bargaining “plea of guilt” for lesser charges and punishment. Plea bargaining considered to be immoral, unethical and unjust as it preys on the poor and illiterate.
10) Political Interference
Administrative agencies are often subject to political interference, however this is not true for every tribunal.
11) Off-the-record consultation
India does not have any law to eliminate the dangers of off-the-record consultation pertinent to administrative agencies. Instead, the principles of natural justice are relied upon which demands that the authority must not base its decision on any evidence which is not brought to the notice of the other party.
12) Reasoned decisions
In India apart from the requirement, if any, of the legislation establishing the administrative agency, there is no obligation for the administrative authority to give reasons apart from the principles of natural justice.
13) Legal Representation and Cross Examination
In India, adjudicatory agencies are not required to follow any standard laws of evidence and procedure. They also do not adhere to the doctrine of precedent. They mainly subscribe to the principles of natural justice and the general requirement of natural justice does not always allow legal representation and cross examination in every case.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION VERSUS JUDICIA ACTION
At times a person is proceeded against both in the department and the court of law. The Supreme Court is of the view that merely because an accused is acquitted by the court of law, the power of
the authority to continue with its departmental proceedings is not taken away. This is due to the fact that the standard of proof differs in both criminal cases and departmental proceedings. In the case of departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is based upon preponderance of possibilities whereas, in a criminal proceedings the charge has to be beyond reasonable doubt. Also, both proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdiction areas.
In the case of Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. Ramchandra, an employee was suspended pending enquiry on the charge of swindling the money deposited with the Corporation as fine by the people. A criminal case was also filed against him in which he was acquitted. The Supreme Court held that departmental action could still be taken even if the employee was acquitted in the criminal case.
In the case of Captain M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., the Supreme Court further elaborated the law on this matter as follows:
1. Both the legal proceedings and departmental proceedings can proceed separately or simultaneously.
2. If bot proceedings are based on identical facts and the charge in criminal proceedings is of grave nature, which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it is best that departmental proceedings may be stayed till the conclusion of the criminal case.
3. Whether the nature of charge in a criminal case is grave and involves complicated questions of law and fact would depend upon the basis of evidence collected during investigation and reflected in the charge sheet.
4. Departmental proceedings if stayed due to pendency of a criminal case can be revised so as to conclude them at an early date. This is done so that if an employee is not found guilty, his honour may be vindicated; and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him as early as possible.
