The question whether the Central Administrative Tribunal could interfere with penalty awarded by the competent authority on the ground that it is excessive or disproportionate to the misconduct proved, was examined by the Supreme Court of India in which one of the following cases ?

In the landmark case of Union of India vs. Shri Parma Nanda (1989), the Supreme Court of India examined the scope of the Central Administrative Tribunal's (CAT) power to interfere with penalties imposed by disciplinary authorities. The Court held that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to substitute its own judgment for that of the competent authority regarding the quantum of punishment, provided the inquiry was fair and legal. It established that interference is only permissible if the penalty is "shockingly disproportionate" to the proved misconduct or if there is a clear violation of law. In contrast, L. Chandra Kumar vs. Union of India (1997) is primarily concerned with the power of judicial review and the constitutional validity of Articles 323A and 323B. The Excel Wear and Sagir Ahmad cases relate to fundamental rights under Article 19 regarding business and trade.