The court upheld the principle of equitable treatment in disciplinary actions, allowing modification of punishments when discrepancies among co-delinquents are evident.

JUDGMENT :

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

The Bank is on appeal aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge made in W.P.No.3688 of 2015 dated 13.10.2023, in and by which, the learned Single Judge modified the punishment of dismissal from service as stoppage of increment for a period of two years with cumulative effect, with a further direction to disburse all terminal benefits and attendant benefits to the employee concerned.

2. The respondent who was appointed as Clerical Staff in the Bank on 24.10.1984 was promoted as an Assistant Manager in the year 2001. He was transferred and posted as Assistant Manager in the Mettupalayam Branch in June 2004 and he worked in that capacity till 08.01.2006. Thereafter, he was transferred to the Coimbatore Branch and he joined duty on 10.01.2006. Charges were framed against him on 07.11.2006 for certain delinquencies alleged to have been committed by him during his tenure as Assistant Manager in Mettupalayam Branch.

3. Since the explanation of the respondent was not accepted, the enquiry officer was appointed and domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer filed a report concluding that the charge Nos.1 to 4 and 10 to 21 were proved. Charge Nos.5, 6 and 9 were held to be not proved and charge Nos.7 and 8 were partially proved.

4. The second show cause notice was issued and the disciplinary Authority imposed a punishment of dismissal from service by its order dated 07.01.2008. The appeal preferred by the respondent against the order of dismissal was also dismissed by the General Manager (Personnel) on 24.06.2008. A Review Application that was filed was also dismissed. This led to the challenge of the order of punishment in this Court.

5. Before the writ Court the respondent mainly contended that though the charges were common, no common enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Rule 10 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. It was also claimed that there was no pecuniary loss to the Bank and all the actions, of the respondent, were in tune with usual course of business of the Bank and were also within the knowledge of the higher officials. It was also further contended that while higher officials involved in the very same transaction were let off with minor punishments, the respondent alone was singled out and major punishment of dismissal was inflicted upon him. Objection was also taken to the unusual procedure adopted by the Bank in accepting the report of the Vigilance Officer without the respondent being given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses, who were allegedly examined by the Vigilance Officer.

6. These claims were resisted by the Bank contending that Rule 10 of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 is only directory and not mandatory. The respondent/ official was also faulted for not having sought for a common enquiry. It was contended that though other officials were also charge sheeted along with the respondent, on the seriousness of the delinquencies, the Bank had come to the conclusion that the respondent is liable for the major punishment and such a conclusion cannot be interfered with by the writ Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also pointed out that at least on two charges viz., Charge Nos.4 and 5, the respondent had availed certain pecuniary benefits. Therefore, the respondent cannot be treated on par with others.

7. The writ Court upon consideration of the rival contentions, the materials place