Supreme Court news: Stating that equating a branch manager of a bank with its gunman seems to be in outrageous defiance of logic and reason, the Supreme Court has restored the dismissal of a Punjab and Sind Bank senior manager accused of financial misconduct, setting aside the Delhi High Court orders that had granted him relief by reducing the punishment to compulsory retirement.A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma was hearing an appeal filed by the bank challenging the high court’s decision reversing the dismissal of one Raj Kumar.“The fact that the disciplinary authority found it prudent in the circumstances to impose a harsher punishment on a higher-ranking official is neither disproportionate, nor shocks our conscience. The High Court clearly fell in error in the course of adjudication of the lis. Quite apart, equating a branch manager of a bank with its gunman seems to us to be in outrageous defiance of logic and reason,” the top court said on April 2. The Supreme Court found the high court’s reasoning flawed, particularly its attempt to equate a senior bank manager with a gunman for the purpose of awarding punishment. (Image enhanced using AI)Accountability rises with rankThe Supreme Court disagreed with the high court’s approach and held that the principle of parity cannot be applied in a vacuum. The bench emphasised that differences in rank, responsibility, and trust reposed in employees are critical factors in determining appropriate punishment.The Supreme Court found the high court’s reasoning flawed, particularly its attempt to equate a senior bank manager with a gunman for the purpose of awarding punishment. Such an approach, the apex court said, was “in outright defiance of logic and reason.”It noted that Kumar, as a senior manager, was not only expected to maintain personal integrity but also to supervise the actions of subordinates. This elevated position placed him in a category distinct from the co-delinquents, whose roles were comparatively limited.“The rank of the respondent was not merely titular; it carried with it an increased degree of responsibility and integrity,” the Supreme Court observed, adding that higher authority necessarily entails higher accountability.Story continues below this ad“Interference could be warranted if it appeals to the court that the disciplinary authority has ‘used a sledgehammer for cracking a nut’. A punishment, which is strikingly or shockingly disproportionate and is not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct, proved to have been committed in course of inquiry or otherwise, would border on arbitrariness and offend Article 14 of the Constitution,”Doctrine of proportionality explainedThe judgment undertakes a detailed survey of precedents on the doctrine of proportionality and the scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters. The court reiterated that while proportionality is a recognised ground for interference, it is to be applied sparingly.It clarified that courts are not to act as appellate authorities over disciplinary decisions. Instead, judicial review is confined to examining whether the decision-making process is flawed, or whether the punishment imposed is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience.Also Read | Parental income can’t be sole factor to decide creamy layer: Supreme CourtThe Supreme Court referred to a consistent line of decisions holding that punishment must be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. However, it stressed that merely because a lesser punishment could have been imposed does not justify judicial intervention.Story continues below this adIn the present case, the court found that the punishment of dismissal was neither irrational nor disproportionate when viewed in light of the Kumar’s role and responsibilities.Limits of judicial review reaffirmedReinforcing settled principles, the court held that disciplinary authorities are best placed to assess misconduct and determine appropriate penalties. Their decisions are entitled to deference unless they are vitiated by illegality, perversity, or procedural impropriety.The bench cautioned that courts must not substitute their own views on punishment merely on compassionate grounds or perceived fairness. Interference is warranted only in exceptional cases where the penalty is so excessive as to be arbitrary.It also clarified that even where interference is justified, the normal course is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration. Substitution of punishment by courts is to be resorted to only in rare cases supported by cogent reasons.Story continues below this adFrom dismissal to reinstatement relief, backThe case arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated against Kumar, who had joined Punjab and Sind Bank in 1987 and rose through the ranks to become a senior manager.The dispute centered on whether the high court was justified in invoking the principle of parity with co-delinquents to reduce the penalty, despite differences in rank and responsibility. The judgment comes after a prolonged legal battle spanning over a decade, with the court reaffirming the limits of judicial interference in service matters.Allegations surfaced that he had connived with a fellow officer and a gunman to misappropriate customer funds and manipulate bank records for personal gain. Following these allegations, Kumar was placed under suspension in December 2011.Also Read | ‘Dominant caste men used sexual violence as tool’: After unease, Supreme Court reviews handbookA departmental inquiry was conducted under the applicable service regulations, culminating in his dismissal from service on November 25, 2014. At the time, he held a senior managerial position, carrying significant supervisory and fiduciary responsibilities.Story continues below this adThe co-delinquents, however, were dealt with more leniently. The gunman was compulsorily retired, while the officer was subjected to a reduction in pay. This disparity in punishment became the central plank of Kumar’s challenge before the high court.Initially, his writ petition went through multiple rounds of litigation, including remand proceedings. Eventually, in February 2023, a single judge bench of the Delhi High Court modified the punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement, holding that imposing different penalties for similar misconduct violated the principle of equality under Article 14.This view was affirmed by a division bench in September 2024, prompting the bank to approach the Supreme Court.Final verdictAllowing the appeal filed by Punjab & Sind Bank, the Supreme Court set aside both the single judge and division bench orders of the Delhi High Court. The court restored the original punishment of dismissal imposed on Raj Kumar.Story continues below this adThe bench concluded that there was no perversity or irrationality in the disciplinary authority’s decision and that the high court had erred in interfering with the penalty. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.