Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed by Punjab and Sindh Bank (appellants) seeking to stay the operation of the judgment dated 03-02-2023 passed by the Single Judge wherein the punishment of dismissal was converted into compulsory retirement as there was differential treatment because the respondent was awarded the extreme punishment of dismissal while the other two had been let off with lesser punishment. A division bench of Suresh Kumar Kait and Girish Kathpalia, JJ., held that the Single Judge has rightly found merit in the grievance ventilated by the respondent that he had not received fair treatment at the hands of the appellant Bank and while co- delinquents been given lesser punishments, he had been awarded the harshest punishment in service jurisprudence.
The present case revolves around the disciplinary proceedings initiated by Punjab and Sindh Bank against its employee, the respondent, and two co-delinquent employees, which eventually led to a legal dispute concerning the nature of punishment imposed. The respondent, serving as the Bank Manager, along with two other employees was charged with acts of misconduct, including debiting excess amounts for personal gains, stealing relevant records, and crediting less to the Income Head for loans and advances. These allegations stemmed from the same transactions and incidents, with accusations that all three acted in connivance to defraud the bank. While all three employees faced similar charges, the respondent, being the Bank Manager, was deemed to have a more significant role in signing documents and overseeing transactions.
The core of the petition arose when the appellant bank dismissed the respondent from service, leading to the forfeiture of all retiral and terminal benefits, leaving his family in a dire financial situation. Meanwhile, the two co-delinquents were only subjected to compulsory retirement, which entitled them to pensionary and terminal benefits. This discrepancy in punishment led the respondent to challenge the decision before the Single Judge of the High Court, who found merit in his plea and converted his dismissal into compulsory retirement. The bank, dissatisfied with this decision, filed the present appeal.
The Court observed that the charges against all three employees were essentially identical, and there was no substantive justification for imposing a harsher punishment on the respondent. It was noted that the only distinction was the respondent’s role as a Bank Manager, but this alone did not warrant such a severe disparity in punishment. The court emphasized that the punishment of dismissal is the harshest in-service jurisprudence, as it deprives an individual not only of their livelihood but also leaves their family in financial distress.
Thus, the Court held that the respondent’s long and unblemished record of service, coupled with the discriminatory treatment when compared to the co-delinquents, warranted reconsideration. The Court decision to convert the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement was seen as a fair and reasonable approach, balancing the need for accountability while also acknowledging the unfairness of the extreme penalty.
Ultimately, the Court found no merit in the bank’s appeal, affirming the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The court directed the bank to comply with the order within four weeks, effectively converting the respondent’s dismissal into compulsory retirement, thereby entitling him to retiral and terminal benefits. This decision underscored the importance of proportionality in disciplinary actions and the need to ensure that similarly placed individuals are treated equitably.
[Punjab and Sindh Bank v. Raj Kumar, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6431, decided on 11-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate for appellants
Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate for respondents
