Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj, was a Scale II Officer with the Bank of India. While posted at the Lal Bangla Branch, Kanpur, he sanctioned three loans and was the recommending authority for two loans at Harsh Nagar Branch. These loans became Non-Performing Assets, causing a likely loss of Rs.70.32 lakh to the Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and the appellant was removed from service, with the penalty not disqualifying him from future employment. The appellant challenged the penalty unsuccessfully before the departmental authorities and the High Court. The Supreme Court granted leave limited to the quantum of penalty, based on the appellant's plea that two other officers, R.K. Mishra and V.K. Srivastava, who caused similar losses, were only compulsorily retired. The Court examined the principle of parity in punishment, relying on Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, which held that co-delinquents must be treated equally unless there is a difference in the nature of charges or subsequent conduct. The Court found that the appellant's role was similar to the other officers, and the only distinction was that the appellant was a pension optee while the others were provident fund optees. However, the Bank's counter affidavit revealed that the appellant was already receiving compassionate allowance equivalent to two-thirds of full pension, which was the same as what he would receive on compulsory retirement. Thus, there was no financial difference. The Court concluded that the differentiation in punishment was unjustified and converted the penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Quantum of Punishment - Parity - Co-delinquent - Doctrine of Equality - The court examined whether the punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant could be altered to compulsory retirement on the basis of parity with two other officers who were awarded compulsory retirement for similar misconduct. The court held that where co-delinquents are awarded lesser punishment for identical or more serious charges, the doctrine of equality applies, provided there is complete parity in nature of charges and subsequent conduct. In this case, the appellant's role as sanctioning and recommending authority was similar to the co-delinquents, and the only distinguishing factor was the appellant being a pension optee versus provident fund optees, which had no financial implication. The court converted the punishment to compulsory retirement. (Paras 4-16) B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Disproportionate Punishment - The court reiterated that the domain of courts on quantum of punishment is limited, and interference is warranted only when the punishment is shockingly disproportionate or when there is a clear case of parity with co-delinquents. Even then, the appropriate course is to remit the matter, except where co-delinquents have been treated differently without justification. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant should be converted to compulsory retirement on the ground of parity with co-delinquent officers who were awarded lesser punishment for similar misconduct.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and converted the punishment of removal from service to compulsory retirement. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Quantum of punishment
- parity in punishment
- doctrine of equality
- co-delinquent
- disciplinary proceedings
- judicial review limited to shockingly disproportionate punishment
