Harsher Punishment Of Dismissal, Compared To Lighter Punishment For Co-Delinquent In Same Incident, Unsustainable: Delhi High Court

A division bench of the Delhi High Court comprising of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait & Justice Girish Kathpalia, while deciding a Letters Patent Appeal held that the harsher punishment of dismissal from service as compared to lighter punishment of compulsory retirement for a co-delinquent in same incident is unsustainable.

Background Facts

The employee in this case joined the appellant bank on June 11, 1987, as a Clerk/Cashier and worked in that role until February 1993. He was promoted to the position of Officer on March 1, 1993, and was transferred to various branches of the bank between 1993 and 2008. During this time, he prevented a fraud involving Rs. 19.20 lakhs at one of the Delhi branches, for which he received an Appreciation Letter. Due to his excellent track record, he was promoted to Manager on April 30, 2008, and later to Senior Manager in the MMGS-III Scale on September 12, 2011.

However, on December 23, 2011, the employee was placed under suspension due to certain allegations of misconduct. He received a show-cause notice on September 8, 2012, to which he provided a detailed reply. Subsequently, a charge sheet was issued against him on September 26, 2013, and a Departmental Inquiry was conducted. The inquiry resulted in his dismissal from service on November 25, 2014.

The allegations in the charge sheet claimed that the employee, in connivance with an officer and a gunman, engaged in financial misconduct, including debiting excess amounts to irrelevant accounts for personal gains, stealing bank records, crediting amounts from unutilized loan limits to earn interest, and cancelling customer drafts. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against all three employees. While the officer was penalized with a two-stage demotion, and the gunman was compulsorily retired, the employee was dismissed from service.

The employee appealed the dismissal, but his appeal was rejected on July 24, 2015, and his review petition was denied on December 30, 2015. Aggrieved by the same, the employee filed the writ petition before the single judge.

The employee restricted his challenge to the quantum of punishment, arguing that it was disproportionate compared to the penalties given to his co-delinquents. He argued that the doctrine of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India had been violated.

The employee contended that the only evidence against him were two letters he had written, which were misinterpreted as admissions of guilt. These letters were written under pressure and threats, and did not amount to a confession of wrongdoing. In the first letter, he stated that if the bank had suffered any loss during his tenure as Branch Manager, he was willing to compensate the amount, and had already deposited Rs. 2,00,000. In the second letter, he explained that he deposited Rs. 4,19,214 under extreme pressure and to save his social prestige, but denied committing any mistake or wrongdoing.

On the other hand, the bank argued that the employee had admitted his delinquency and voluntarily deposited a sum of Rs. 6,19,214 towards the loss caused to the bank. The bank contended that the employee being a Branch Manager, held a position of greater responsibility compared to his co-delinquents, who were in lower-ranking positions (an officer and a gunman).

After examining the charges and allegations, the single judge found no substantial difference in the nature of the charges. All three employees were alleged to have engaged in acts of omission and commission involving debiting excess amounts, crediting lesser amounts, and siphoning funds for personal gains. The only difference noted was that the employee, as Branch Manager, had signed certain documents and checked the transactions in question. However, this administrative role was not considered by the single judge as an aggravating factor warranting disproportionate punishment.

It was noted by the single judge that the charges against the employee and his co-delinquents related to the same incidents and acts of connivance. As such, all three individuals should be treated on the same footing in terms of disciplinary action and punishment. The single judge also referred to the proportionality principle in service law, which requires that the punishment must be commensurate with the nature of the misconduct.

It was ruled by the single judge that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the employee was disproportionate and discriminatory when compared to the punishment imposed on his co-delinquents. The single judge modified the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement, thereby entitling the employee to receive pensionary benefits for his past service.

Aggrieved by the same, the appellant bank filed an appeal against the order of the learned single judge.

Findings of the Court

It was observed by the court that the Single Judge had rightly found merit in the grievance raised by the employee that he had not received fair treatment at the hands of the appellant Bank.

The case of Union of India & Ors. vs Sri Sankar Prosad Ghosh & Anr. was relied upon by the court wherein the supreme court held that livelihood is recognized as a fundamental aspect of the right to life. Being dismissed not only deprives them of their livelihood but also renders them unemployable, resulting in what is described as a "civil death," as they lose the ability to support themselves at a stage when their capacity to find alternative employment is greatly diminished.

It was observed by the court that the punishments awarded to the co-delinquents for same incidents and acts of connivance were not proportionate. The long and unblemished spell of service of the respondent was also looked into by the court. It was held that the learned Single Judge was right in converting the punishment from 'dismissal' to one of 'compulsory retirement'.

With the aforesaid observations, the court found no error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same was accordingly dismissed by the court.

Case No. : LPA 410/2023 & CM APPL. 53223/2024

Counsel for the Appellants : Rajat Arora, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents : G. S. Chaturvedi, Advocate

Click Here To Read/Download Order