High Ranking Employee Can't Seek Same Lesser Penalty Given To Subordinates : Supreme Court Restores Bank Manager's Dismissal

The Supreme Court has observed that a delinquent officer holding a higher post cannot claim parity in punishment with employees of a lower rank for the same misconduct.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma upheld the dismissal of a Punjab & Sind Bank's senior manager from service, who, after conniving with a sub-ordinate bank officer and a gunman, misappropriated the customers' money for their personal gain.

The Court allowed the bank's appeal and set aside the Delhi High Court's decision, which had modified the punishment imposed on the Respondent from that of a 'dismissal from service' to a 'compulsory retirement'. The High Court interfered with the disciplinary committee's decision on punishment merely on account of parity, as the co-delinquent employees were awarded a lower punishment than the Respondent for the same charges.

“Sight cannot be lost of the fact that the respondent, when he committed the offence, was holding the post of “Senior Manager in MMGS-III Scale”, which is obviously much higher than the codelinquents (officer and gunman). Authority carries accountability; higher the authority, higher the accountability. The rank of the respondent was not merely titular; it carried with it an increased degree of responsibility and integrity. The role of the respondent not only necessitated personal obedience but also supervision of the actions of the subordinates. The co-delinquents, having limited powers and authority, could not have been equated with the respondent. The gravity of the misconduct necessarily had to be measured with the nature of the misconduct. Thus, grant of the benefit of parity to the respondent by the High Court merely because the co-delinquents were given lighter punishment was entirely misconceived.”, the court observed.

“…the fact that the disciplinary authority found it prudent in the circumstances to impose a harsher punishment on a higher-ranking official is neither disproportionate, nor shocks our conscience. The High Court clearly fell in error in the course of adjudication of the lis.”, the court added.

Background

The respondent, a Senior Manager (MMGS-III Scale) with nearly 37 years of service, was found guilty of conniving with a bank officer and a gunman to misappropriate customer funds and tamper with bank records.

While the co-delinquents received lighter penalties i.e., reduction in pay and compulsory retirement, the respondent was dismissed from service. The High Court had held this differential treatment to be discriminatory under Article 14 and modified the punishment.

Challenging the High Court's decision, the bank appealed to the Supreme Court.

Disagreeing with the High Court, the judgment authored by Justice Datta underscored that equality under Article 14 does not mandate identical treatment for individuals who are not similarly situated. Since the role of the Respondent, being holding a position of a senior manager, is not equivalent to that of the co-delinquents, a principle of parity cannot be invoked to claim lighter punishment.

Moreover, the court stressed that it is impermissible for the courts to interfere with the disciplinary authority's findings, unless it suffers from the vires of arbitrariness and unreasonableness.

Thus, the appeal was allowed, and the Respondent's dismissal from the service was upheld.

“…we do not find any perversity or irrationality with the punishment imposed. We have, therefore, reached the irresistible conclusion that interference by the Single Judge with the decision of the disciplinary authority, since affirmed by the Division Bench vide the impugned order, was uncalled for.”, the court observed.

Cause Title: PUNJAB & SIND BANK VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 322

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Deepanjal Chaudhary, Adv. Ms. Azal Aekram, Adv. Ms. Likvi K Jhakalu, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Surya Kant, AOR