Non-discrimination in the matter of punishment as established by the Supreme Court.

( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned orders dated 16. 8. 88, 11. 10. 89 and 5. 2. 90, annexures-7, 9 and 11 to the petition. The petitioner was appointed in United Commercial Bank in 1966. He was promoted as officer grade-I in 1977. On 3. 12. 80. the petitioner joined as officiating Branch Manager and functioned from 3. 12. 80 to 26. 6. 81. During the officiating period, the petitioner granted certain facilities of temporary overdraft/purchase of cheques for which he was charge-sheeted and suspended. True copy of charge-sheet is Annexure-1 to the petition. A reply of the petitioner dated 16. 8. 85 is Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter an enquiry was held and the petitioner by order dated 16. 8. 85 was removed from service. He filed an appeal which was dismissed by order dated 11. 10. 89 and the review petition was also rejected, hence this petition.

( 3 ) THE only point which learned counsel for petitioner has pressed, is regarding the quantum of punishment. He has submitted that the petitioner should have been given a lesser punishment. The enquiry report is Annexure-6 to the writ petition. The finding of guilt is a finding of fact which cannot be in terfered with in writ jurisdiction. However, the question remains whether the petitioner deserves a lesser punishment. In his appeal copy of which is Annexure-9 to the petition, the petitioner has given his explanation. There is no charge of embezzlement of any amount or misappropriation by the petitioner. The petitioner has contended that at best, there were lapses committed by him and this was due to the fact that a new branch of the Bank was opened at Mirzapur on 2. 12. 80 and the petitioner was transferred and posted as Assistant manager in the said branch on the very first date, i. e. , 2. 12. 80. The petitioner functioned from 3. 12. 80 to 26. 6. 81 as the officiating Branch Manager. Since the Bank was new and the petitioner was newly appointed several facilities and incentives were given to the customers.

( 4 ) WE would have ordinarily not in terfered with the impugned order but for the fact that one M. L. Keshwani the Branch Manager was also charge-sheeted on similar charge as the petitioner. On 7. 9. 95. this Court directed learned counsel for the Bank to file a supplementary affidavit stating about the action taken by the Bank against M. L. Keshwani who was also charge-sheeted for the overdraft. Thereafter the Bank filed an affidavit stating that Sri Keshwani was also charge-sheeted for similar misconduct as the petitioner. Sri Keshwani granted overdrafts of several lacs of rupees whereas according to the finding of the enquiry officer, the overdrafts granted by the petitioner, was less than Rs. 20,000. However Sri Keshwani was given the punishment of withholding one increment only. Hence it is urged that there is discrimination against the petitioner.

( 5 ) THE Supreme Court has held in several cases that there should be no discrimination in the matter of punishment vide Sengara Singh v. State of Punjab, 1983 (4) SCC 225.

( 6 ) ON the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the punishment given to the petitioner was disproportionate and excessive. Hence while we uphold finding of guilt, we quash the orders dated 16. 8. 88 and the order dated 11. 10. 89 and 5. 2. 90 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 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 his 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.

( 7 ) WRIT petition is allo