Om Kumar and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.

decided by the Supreme

Background:
The case involved disciplinary proceedings against several officers of the Delhi Development
Authority (DDA) accused of irregularities in land allotment.
These officers faced punishments ranging from reprimands to dismissal from service.
Key issue:
The petitioners challenged the quantum of punishment imposed, arguing it was
disproportionately harsh compared to the alleged offense.
They invoked the doctrine of proportionality, arguing that even for administrative sanctions,
punishments should be proportionate to the offense committed.
Court's Decision:
The Supreme Court partially upheld the petitioners' arguments.
While acknowledging the doctrine of proportionality in Indian law, the court clarified that its
application in administrative disciplinary proceedings would be different from its application in
criminal cases.
The court held that courts could intervene in disciplinary proceedings only if the punishment
imposed was "shockingly or grossly disproportionate" to the misconduct proved.
While expressing concerns about some penalties in the DDA case, the court ultimately found
them within the range of permissible punishments and didn't interfere.
Significance:
This case established a crucial precedent for applying the doctrine of proportionality in
administrative disciplinary proceedings in India.
It clarified that while courts could review the proportionality of punishments, their
intervention would be limited to cases of extreme disproportionality.
The case remains a reference point for discussions on administrative accountability and fair
disciplinary processes in India.
x. Sowar Azad Singh .…. Petitioner
Mr. Pradeep Dahiya, Advocate.
v.
Union of India & Ors. .…. Respondents
Mr. Sachin Datta, CGSC with Mr. Ahbimanyu Kumar, Advocate.1
 Summary of the Judgement:
 Soldier (petitioner) dismissed from service for overstaying leave: The petitioner, a soldier
in the Indian Army, was dismissed from service for overstaying his leave by 44 days.
 Previous history of overstaying: The petitioner had a history of overstaying leave on
multiple occasions, including 46 days in 1990 and 102 days in 1991.
 Petitioner's claims: The petitioner claimed he fell sick during his leave and informed his
superiors, but he lacked evidence to support this claim. He also argued his wife's job and
lack of family accommodation near his posting justified his overstaying, but these
arguments were deemed irrelevant.
 Tribunal's decision: The Armed Forces Tribunal upheld the dismissal, considering the
petitioner's past conduct and lack of justification for the latest overstaying.
 Petitioner's appeal: The petitioner appealed the Tribunal's decision to the High
Court, arguing he was close to receiving pension benefits (15 years of service) and
seeking conversion of dismissal to discharge.
 High Court's decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no
illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in the Tribunal's decision. The petitioner's
conditional consent to discharge and lack of evidence supporting his claims were also
factors in the dismissal.

1
Sowar Azad Singh v. Union of India, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 302
Ex Spr Manjunath VS … Applicant;
Versus
Union of India & Ors. … Respondents.2
Soldier seeks conversion of dismissal to discharge:
 The applicant, dismissed from the army, petitions for conversion of the dismissal to
discharge, citing a policy and claiming the stigma hampers finding other employment.
 The respondents argue the applicant’s service was too short for pension benefits, making
discharge meaningless. They also claim he missed an opportunity to request conversion
earlier.
Tribunal's decision:
 The Tribunal acknowledges their power to convert sentences but dismisses the
application.
 Reasons for dismissal:
o Lack of pensionable service weakens the argument about erasing stigma.
o Dismissal carries justified stigma and isn't easily converted without pension
benefits involved.
o The applicant missed an opportunity to raise the conversion request earlier.
Key takeaways:
 Conversion of dismissal to discharge requires both eligibility and compelling reasons.
 Lack of pensionable service significantly weakens the argument for conversion based on
stigma.
 Dismissal carries stigma and is not easily overturned unless other benefits are involved.
 Missing an opportunity to raise the conversion request earlier can hurt the case

Sub BK Singh (JC No. 722890-X) C/o Sub LB Singh, H. No. E-196 Shyam
Vihar, Face-I, Najafgarh New Delhi-110043 … Applicant;
Versus

2
Ex Spr Manjunath VS v. Union of India, 2017 SCC OnLine AFT 109
1. Union of India,
 Summary of the Judgement:
 Appellant: Sub B.K. Singh (JC No. 722890-X)
 Case: Seeking modification/conversion of dismissal from service into
discharge from service.
 Background:
o Dismissed from service after court-martial conviction.
o Challenged conviction and sentence through various forums but
unsuccessful.
o Filed multiple petitions and appeals claiming service benefits despite final
decisions against him.
 Decision:
o Appeal (OA) dismissed.
o Reason:
 Res judicata: Appellant has exhausted all legal avenues to challenge
his dismissal and claim service benefits.
 Abuse of process: Repeatedly filing new petitions without new
grounds wastes court/tribunal time.
 Cost: No costs imposed on appellant, hoping he won't pursue further
litigation.
 Key Points:
 Appellant exhausted all legal options to challenge dismissal and claim
benefits.
 Repeatedly filing new petitions without new grounds violates the principle
of res judicata and abuses the legal process.
 Court hopes appellant will stop pursuing further litigation.