1 hour ago
4
The Supreme Court has reinstated the dismissal of a bank's senior manager, underscoring that authority comes with accountability, and his position carried with it an increased degree of responsibility and integrity.
The top court noted allegations that the senior manager had connived with an officer and a gunman to misappropriate the money of customers for personal gain and steal bank records.
The apex court set aside the Delhi High Court order, which had modified the punishment of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement.
The High Court had noted that for similar charges, different punishments were imposed on the co-delinquents — the officer and the gunman — with the senior manager having been given the most severe punishment without any difference in their roles.
However, the apex court disagreed with this reasoning.
"Quite apart, equating a branch manager of a bank with its gunman seems to us to be in outrageous defiance of logic and reason," a Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma said in its April 2 judgement.
The Bench delivered its verdict on an appeal filed by the bank challenging the September 2024 order of the High Court.
The top court noted that the disciplinary authority had imposed the penalty of dismissal from service on the senior manager.
The Bench further noted that the disciplinary authority had imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the gunman, while the co-delinquent officer was awarded "lowering by two stages".
"Whether the imposition of lighter punishment on the co-delinquents while imposing the punishment of 'dismissal from service' upon the respondent (senior manager) is in outright defiance of logic? We think not," the Bench said.
It said that when he committed the offence, the respondent was holding the post of "senior manager in MMGS-III scale", which was obviously much higher than the two co-delinquents.
"Authority carries accountability; the higher the authority, the 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," it said.
The Bench said the co-delinquents, having limited powers and authority, could not have been equated with the respondent. It also said that the gravity of misconduct necessarily had to be measured with the nature of the misconduct.
"Thus, the 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 differentiation in rank coupled with the increased trust of the employer on the respondent certainly constituted a compelling ground for a more stringent punishment to be imposed on him," the Bench said.
The top court said taking an overall view, the fact that the disciplinary authority found it prudent in the circumstances to impose a harsher punishment on a higher-ranking official was "neither disproportionate, nor shocks our conscience." "Considering the facts of the present case, we do not find any perversity or irrationality with the punishment imposed," it said.
While allowing the appeal, the bench said, "The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority (namely dismissal from service) imposed on the respondent is restored".
The bench referred to several apex court verdicts delineating the circumstances in which judicial interference was warranted in matters concerning the imposition of punishment by disciplinary authorities.
It noted that courts should exercise restraint while interdicting orders of punishment and normally, no court in the exercise of its power of judicial review should interfere with an order of punishment imposed on a delinquent as a measure of disciplinary action by the competent authority and substitute its own judgment for that of the former.
"This is premised on the reason that the disciplinary authority is the best judge of the situation, and the requirements of maintaining discipline within the work force," the Bench said.
It said interference could be warranted if it appeals to the court that the disciplinary authority has "used a sledgehammer for cracking a nut".
"A punishment, which is strikingly or shockingly disproportionate and is not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct, proved to have been committed in the course of inquiry or otherwise, would border on arbitrariness and offend Article 14 of the Constitution," it said.
English (US) ·