IMPORTANT POINT
Even if a co-delinquent is given lesser punishment in domestic enquiry it cannot be a ground for interference in punishment given to other delinquent.

Headnote:United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976-Disciplinary proceedings under against respondent-Charges proved-Dismissed from service-Writ petition-High Court holding charges proved but disturbed punishment on ground that in another case lesser punishment is given-Appeal to Supreme Court-Scope of Court s interference in the quantum of punishment-Only if punishment is disproportionate to guilt proved or shocking the conscience of court with reasons-Whether interference in present case legal? (No)-Matter remanded.
Held : The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury s case (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision - making process and not the decision. To put difference unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to certain litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. In the case at hand the High Court did not record any reason as to how and why it found the punishment shockingly disproportionate. Even there is no discussion on this aspect. The only discernible reason was the punishment awarded in M.L. Keshwani s case. As was observed by this Court in Balbir Chand vs. Food Corporation of India Ltd. and Ors. (1997 (3) SCC 371), even if a co-delinquent is given lesser punishment it cannot be a ground for interference. Even such a plea was not available to be given credence as the allegations were contextually different. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the Bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik (1996 (9) SCC 69). It is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court. It needs no emphasis that when a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971 (1) All E.R. 1148] observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. But as noted above, the proceedings commenced in 1981. The employee was placed under suspension from 1983 to 1988 and has superannuated in 2002. Acquittal in the criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings, notwithstanding acquittal in criminal case. It per se would not entitle the employee to claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most the factum of acquittal may be a circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon facts of each case and even that cannot have universal application. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to send the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. The High Court shall only consider the punishment aspect, treating all other matters to be closed and to have become final. The appeal filed by the employer is accordingly disposed of while that filed by the employee is dismissed. (Paras 11 to 16)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat J.-Heard.

2. Leave granted in S.L.P. (C) No. 883 of 2000.

3. Both these appeals relate to judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 7.9.1999 and are, therefore, disposed of by this common judgment. The primary question involved is the scope of interference in the matter of punishment by the High Court.

4. Factual background in a nutshell is as follows:-

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the United Commercial Bank (hereinafter referred to as the employer ) against P.C. Kakkar (hereinafter referred to as the employee ). It was alleged that he had committed several acts of misconduct while functioning as Assistant Manager of Mirzapur Branch. He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 6-7-1983. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated in terms of United Commercial Bank Officer Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the regulation ). The charges were found established in respect of charge Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and 8. On the basis of findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and as endorsed by the Disciplinary Authority, order of dismissal was passed on 16-8-1988. Appeal preferred by the employee before the prescribed appellate authority did not bring any relief. Similar was the fate of the review application. Matter was carried in writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. As noticed by the High Court, there was no challenge to the findings recorded, and what was urged related to the quantum of punishment. One of the points highlighted to question the quantum of punishment was that in a similar situation, lesser punishment was imposed on one M.L. Keshwani though the allegations against him were of much serious nature. The High Court accepted the plea and, inter alia, directed as follows:-

"The Supreme Court has held in several cases that there should be no discrimination in the matter of punishment vide Sangram Singh Versus State of Punjab (1983 (4) SCC 225).

On the facts of the case we are of the opinion that the punishment given to the petitioner was misappropriate and excessive. Hence while we uphold finding of guilt. We quash the orders dated 16.8.1988 and the order dated 11.10.1989 and 5.2.1990 and direct that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service within six weeks of production of certified copy of this order before the authority concerned but he will be given a lesser punishment. Since the matter has been pending for a long time we direct that the petitioner will be given the punishment of being deprived of 75 of salary for the period from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement and he will be given a severe warning not to make such mistakes in future but he will get seniority and continuity of service as if his service had not been terminated."

5. According to learned counsel for the employer, after having found that the charges were established the High Court committed an error in interfering with the quantum of punishment. The scope of such interference is extremely limited. After having noted that there was no challenge to the findings, there was no scope for interfering with the quantum of punishment. Some of the charges were of very serious nature and one of the charges related to fabrication and manipulation of records. It is pointed out that even if a co-delinquent has been given lesser punishment, same cannot be a ground for interference. The employee was acting as Assistant Manager in the Bank and committed the acts of misconduct. Taking into account the higher standard of honesty and integrity required by such employees any interference with the quantum of punishment would amount to misplaced sympathy. According to Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the employee, there were several mitigating circumstances. It was categorically urged that there was no embezzlement or fraud and there was no loss caused to the Bank. The allegations of fictitious entries were found not to have been established in a crim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 167

IMPORTANT POINTEven if a co-delinquent is given lesser punishment in domestic enquiry it cannot be a ground for interference in punishment given to other delinquent.

Cases Referred (6)

IMPORTANT POINT
Even if a co-delinquent is given lesser punishment in domestic enquiry it cannot be a ground for interference in punishment given to other delinquent.