In the case of Om Kumar And Ors vs Union Of India on 17 November, 2000, the Supreme Court of India was presented with a complex situation involving disciplinary inquiries, administrative law, and the principles of proportionality. The case was presided over by M. Jagannadha Rao and U.C. Banerjee.
Facts of the Case
The case revolved around the proceedings arising from an order of the Supreme Court dated 4.5.2000, which proposed to re-open the quantum of punishments imposed in departmental inquiries on certain officers of the Delhi Development Authority (DDA). These officers were involved with the land of the DDA allotted to M/s Skipper Construction Co. The court proposed to consider the imposition of higher degree of punishments in view of the role of these officers in the said matter.
The case was initiated by an order dated 29.11.94, where the Supreme Court requested Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy to investigate into the conduct of the officials of the DDA, including its ex-officio chairman at the relevant time, in handing over the possession of the suit land in M/s. Skipper Construction Pvt. Ltd. before receiving the auction amount in full. The investigation also included looking into the legality and propriety of the order dated 4.10.98 passed by the then ex-officio Chairman of the DDA and the directions given by the Central Government under Section 41 of the Delhi Development Act.
Issues Raised
The main issues raised in the case were whether the right punishments were awarded to the officers in accordance with well-known principles of law or whether the punishments required any upward revision. The court also had to consider whether the punishments imposed on these officers were proportionate to the gravity of misconduct.
Court’s Observations
The court observed that the officers of the DDA who dealt with these matters at the relevant time were solely responsible for the misery of hundreds of claimants who had put in their life’s earnings in the Skipper Construction Company. The court felt that the punishments imposed on these officers were not proportionate to the gravity of misconduct and that the punishments needed to be upgraded.
The court also examined the cases of Sri Om Kumar and of Sri Virendra Nath from the standpoint of basic principles applicable under Administrative Law, namely, Wednesbury principles and the doctrine of proportionality. The court agreed that the question of the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or other of the well-known principles known as Wednesbury principles.
In conclusion, the court decided to re-open the punishments imposed and to refer them for reconsideration by the Vigilance Commissioner. The court issued notice to the five officers to show cause, why the question relating to the quantum of punishments should not be re-opened and referred to the Vigilance Commissioner for re-examination.