Delhi High Court
In The Matter Of Raj Kumar vs Punjab And Sind Bank And Ors. on 12 December, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: December 12, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 11034/2017 & C.M. 45112/2017
IN THE MATTER OF RAJ KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, Advocate
Versus
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora & Mr. Niras
Kumar, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. Consequent upon departmental proceedings initiated against
petitioner, who was the Branch Manager of Punjab and Sind Bank,
Roshan Pur branch, penalty of "dismissal which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future employment" was imposed on the charge of
conniving with S. Gurjant Singh, Desk Officer and Sukhdev Singh, the
concerned Clerk in debiting the excess amount to Bank's Head-„Interest
paid to saving bank deposits and credited the excess debited amount to
some irrelevant accounts on certain dates‟ to the tune of `1,85,150/- for
his personal gains and had taken away / stolen the relevant bank's record.
2. The appeal and the review petition against the impugned penalty
order of 25th November, 2014 (Annexure P-3) were preferred by
petitioner, but without success. The challenge to the impugned penalty
order of 25th November, 2014 (Annexure P-3), appellate order (Annexure
P-2) and order in review petition (Annexure P-1), is on the ground that
documents sought by petitioner at the time of filing reply to the Show
Cause Notice were not supplied to him on the specious plea of these
documents being irrelevant. According to petitioner's counsel, this plea
was taken before the Appellate Authority but it has not been dealt with.
It is also the case of petitioner that his co-delinquents i.e. S. Gurjant
Singh, Desk Officer and Sukhdev Singh, the concerned Clerk have been
awarded lighter punishment whereas harsh punishment has been inflicted
upon him.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that although the case set up
against petitioner and his co-delinquents is of connivance but S. Gurjant
Singh has been let off by lowering to one stage below and Mr. Sukhdev
Singh, clerk has been inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement.
Learned counsel for petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to
Supreme Court's decision in Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of M.P. & Ors.
(2013) 3 SCC 73 to submit that plea of parity has to be applied while
awarding punishment among co-delinquents.
4. During the course of hearing learned counsel for respondents had
drawn the attention of this Court to Punjab & Sind Bank Officer
Employees‟ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 to submit that as
per Sub-Regulation 10 of Regulation no. 6, relevancy of documents
sought by the delinquent has to be spelt out, which has not been done and
so, petitioner's complaint about non-supply of documents is of no
consequence.
5. At this stage, petitioner's counsel clarifies that Sub-Regulation 10
of Regulation no. 6 of Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees‟
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 applies at the inquiry stage and
not at the stage of reply to charge.
6. Be that as it may. Since petitioner has not explained relevancy of
documents sought, therefore, petitioner suffers no prejudice on this
aspect. So far as the proportionality of punishment is concerned, I find
that petitioner's co-delinquents have been awarded lower punishment.
Supreme Court in Rajendra Yadav (Supra) has reiterated that principle of
parity in awarding punishment to co-delinquents has to be applied. The
concerned authorities have failed to look into this aspect.
7. In view of aforesaid, I find that the findings returned against
petitioner are not required to be gone into, as there is no procedural lapse
nor these findings are perverse. However, on the penalty aspect, the
disciplinary authority is required to consider whether petitioner is
required to be put at par with his co-delinquents or not. In the considered
opinion of this Court, the penalty of dismissal from service, is highly
disproportionate.
8. Consequently, the appellate order of 24th July, 2015 (Annexure P-
2) and order of 30th December, 2015 (Annexure P-1) in review, are
negated on quantum of penalty, with direction to the appellate authority
to award appropriate penalty to petitioner in light of Regulation 4 of
Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees‟ (Discipline & Appeal)
Regulations, 1981 while keeping in view the parity aspect. Let the
needful be done within twelve weeks and petitioner be apprised of it,
within two weeks thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies,
as available in law, if need be.
9. With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed
of.
10. Dasti.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
DECEMBER 12, 2017
r
