Judicial review of disciplinary punishment is limited to cases where the penalty is shockingly disproportionate or perverse. Parity in punishment is not absolute; it must account for the delinquent's rank and level of responsibility, as higher authority inherently demands greater accountability.

DIPANKAR DATTA, J.

The greater the trust reposed, the stricter the scrutiny imposed.

1. The present appeal, by special leave, at the instance of Punjab and Sind Bank, s R1ig n takes exception to the judgment and order dated 11^th

2 3 September, 2024 of the High Court of Delhi . Vide the impugned

4 order, a writ appeal filed by the P&SB was dismissed and the

5 judgment and order of the Single Judge, allowing a writ petition filed by the respondent, affirmed. The Single Judge modified the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ imposed upon the respondent Signature Not Verified D JA ig T it I a N ll D y E K e AP d U b &R y SB Date: 2026.04.02

1 R 7 e : a 1 s 4 o :0 n 7 :

I2ST

impugned order

3 High Court

4 LPA No. 410 of 2023

5 dated 3rd February, 2023

to ‘compulsory retirement’ on the ground of discrimination in imposition of punishment thereby offending Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. Facts, triggering this appeal, are these:

a. Respondent joined the P&SB as a Clerk/Cashier in the year 1987 until he was placed under suspension in December of 2011, followed by disciplinary action of dismissal from service on 25^th November, 2024. At the time of dismissal, the respondent held the post of “Senior Manager in MMGS-III Scale”.

b. The punishment of dismissal imposed on the respondent (senior manager at the relevant time) was preceded by a show cause notice, a chargesheet and an inquiry in accordance with the Punjab and Sind Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1981 on the allegation that the respondent connived with two others (one officer, Gurjant Singh and a gunman, Sukhdev Singh to misappropriate money of the customers for their personal gain, stealing bank records, etc. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the co-delinquent gunman while the co-delinquent officer was awarded “lowering by two stages”. The precise import of the said punishment remains unclear; however, we assume that the expression denotes a reduction in ‘pay’ by two stages.

c. Dejected, the respondent unsuccessfully filed an appeal and subsequently a review against the order of the disciplinary authority but to no avail. Seeking his reinstatement, the respondent then approached the writ court by filing a writ petition, WP (C) No. 11034/2017 d. Initially, the said writ petition was disposed of by a Single Judge vide order dated 12^th December, 2017. After rejecting the claim of the respondent on the merits of the disciplinary proceedings, the Single Judge directed the appellate authority to impose an appropriate punishment upon the respondent keeping the principle of parity in mind. Respondent carried the said order in an intra-court appeal, LPA No. 708 of 2018 which was disposed of by a Division Bench (vide order dated 8^th January, 2019) by setting aside the order under appeal and directing the Single Judge to decide the writ petition on merits.

e. Apart from challenging the decision on merits, the respondent’s claim before the High Court was also that he was discriminated against in imposition of punishment; while one of the co-delinquents was compulsorily retired and the other awarded punishment of “lowering by two stages”, he was dismissed from service. Later, before the Single Judge who decided the writ petition on remand, the respondent limited his challenge only to the quantum of punishment, on the ground of parity with the co-delinquents. The Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ petition after noting that for similar charges, different

punishments were imposed on the co-delinquents with the r