OM KUMAR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA IN DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 693 · Decided: 17-11-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

OM KUMAR AND ORS. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
IN 
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 
v. 
SKIPPER CONSTRUCTION AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 17, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
Service Law-Employee-Disciplinary enquiry-Punishment-
Proportionality to gravity of offence-Power of Court to interfere with 
quantum of Punishment-Extent of-Doctrine of proportionality. 
A 
B 
c 
Delhi Development A uthority-Ojficials-Disciplinary enquiry- D 
Punishment-Order by Supreme Court reop~ning the question of quantum of 
punishment-Upward revision of punishment by Supreme Court-
Permissibility and extent of-Proportionality and punishment in service law. 
Administrative Law 
Doctrine cf Proportionality and Wednesbury Principles-Applicability E 
of-Meaning of proportionality-Position in other countries discussed-
Distinction between primary and secondary roles of Courts in the matter of 
proportionality-Proportionality and administrative action. 
Where administrative action is challenged under Article 14 as being F 
discriminatory, equals are treated unequally or unequals are treated equally, 
the question is for the Constitutional Courts as primary reviewing Courts to 
consider correctness of the level of discrimination applied and whether it is 
excessive and whether it has a nexus with the objective intended to be 
achieved by the administrator-Here the Court deals with the merits of the 
balancing action of the administrator and is, in essence, applying G 
'proportionality' and is a primary reviewing authority-But where, an 
administrative action is challenged as 'arbitrary' under Article 14 as in 
cases where punishments in disciplinary cases are challenged, the question 
will be whether the administrative order is 'rational' or 'reasonable' and the 
test then is the Wednesbury test-The Courts would then be confined only to H 
693 
694 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A a seconda1y role and will only have to see whether the administrator has 
done well in his primary role, whether he has acted illegally or has omitted 
relevant factors from consideration or has taken irrelevant factors into 
consideration or whether his view is one which no reasonable person could 
have taken-If his action does not satisfy these rules, it is to be treated as 
B arbitrary. 
Held where an administrative decision relating to punishment in 
disciplina1y cases is questioned as. 'arbitrary' under Article I 4, the Court is 
confined to Wednesbury principles as a secondary reviewing authority-The 
Court will not apply proportionality as a primary reviewing Court because 
C no issue of fimdamental .freedoms nor of discrimination under Article 14 
applies in such a context-The Court while reviewing punishment and if it 
is satisfied that Wednesbury principles are violated, it has normally to remit 
the matter to the administrator for a fresh decision as to the quantum of 
punishment-Only in rare cases where there has been long delay in the time 
taken by the disciplinary proceedings and in the time taken in the Courts, 
D and such extreme or rare cases can the Court substitute its own view as to 
the quantum of punishment. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : Article 226 
High Court-Judicial review-Power of High Court to interfere with 
E the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters. 
Part Ill-Fundamental Rights-Proportionality and legislation-Power 
of Court to declare unconstitutional on the Principle of Proportionality-
legislation relating to restrictions on fundamental .freedoms could be tested 
F on the anvil of 'proportionality '-This is called 'primary' review by the 
Courts of the validity of legislation which offended fundamental freedoms. 
Articles 14 and 2 I-Principle of proportionality. 
Union of India v. Ganavutham, 119971 7 SCC 463; Chintaman Rao v. 
G State of UP., 119501 SCR 759; State of Madras v. V.S. Row, 119521SCR597; 
State of A.P. v. Mc. Dowell & Co., f199613 SCC 709; Bachan Singh v. State 
of Punjab, (198012 SCC 684; Air India v. Nergesh Meerza & Ors., 119811 4 
SCC 335 at 372-373; R.M. Seshadri v. Distt. Magistrate Tanjore & Anr., AIR 
(1954) SC 747; Union of India v. Motion Picture Association, f 19991 6 SCC 
150; S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram & Ors., f1989) 2 SCC 574; Malak 
H Singh & Ors., v. State of P & H & Ors., ft 98111 SCC 420; Bishambhar Dayal 
'• 
-
OM KUMAR y. U.0.1. 
695 
Chandra Mohan & Ors. v. State ofU.P. & Ors., 11982] 1SCC39; E.P. Royappa A 
v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974] 4 SCC 31; Indira Sawhney v. Union of

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.