LUCKNOW K. GRAMIN BANK (NOW ALLAHABAD, U.P. GRAMIN BANK) & ANR. versus RAJENDRA SINGH

Citation: [2013] 17 S.C.R. 309 · Decided: 29-07-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIL R. DAVE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 17 S.C.R. 309 
LUCKNOW K. GRAMIN BANK (NOW ALLAHABAD, U.P. 
GRAMIN BANK) & ANR. 
v. 
RAJENDRA SINGH 
(Civil Appeal No.6142 of 2013) 
JULY 29, 2013 
[ANIL R. DAVE AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law -
Departmental enquiry -
Penalty I 
punishment - Judicial review - Scope - Held: The Courts C 
cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental 
authorities - Limited judicial review is available to interfere 
with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, 
only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to 
the conscience of the Court - Even in such a case, the D 
appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the 
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction 
to pass appropriate order of penalty - The Court by itself 
cannot mandate as to w/Jat should be the penalty in such a 
case - The only exception to the said principle, would be in 
E 
those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser 
punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the 
charges of misconduct was identical or the co-delinquent was 
foisted with more serious charges - This would be on the 
Doctrine of Equality when it is found that the concerned 
F 
employee and the co-delinquent are equally placed -
However, there has to be a complete parity between the tvvo, 
not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct 
as well after the service of charge sheet in the two cases - If 
co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with 
G 
unqualified apology lesser punishment to him would be 
justifiable - However, such a comparison is permissible only 
when the other employee(s) who is given lighter punishment 
was co-delinquent - Such a comparison is not permissible 
309 
H 
310 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 17 S.C.R. 
A by citing the cases of other employees, as precedents, in 
altogether different departmental enquiries. 
The appellant-Bank issued separate charge-sheets to 
six employees including the three respondents leveling 
8 
identical charges of misconduct. All the six employees 
denied the charges. The appellant-Bank initially chose to 
proceed and conduct the enquiry only against the 
respondents. The enquiry officer returned the findings 
that charges leveled against the respondents stood 
C proved. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority 
dismissed all the three respondents from service. The 
departmental appeals filed by the respondents were 
dismissed. 
Aggrieved, the respondents filed writ petitions before 
D the High Court. Meanwhile, the other three employees 
had admitted the charges and tendered unconditional 
apology and also had given undertaking that they would 
not commit any such misconduct in future. Keeping in 
view the same, they were inflicted the penalty of reduction 
E of basic pay by one stage for one year with cumulative 
effect. 
Referring to the orders of punishment passed by the 
Disciplinary Authority in the case of other three 
F employees, the respondents stated before the High Court 
that they too were willing to tender unconditional 
apologies for their misconduct with assurance that they 
would not repeat the same in future. 
The High Court set aside the order of the punishment 
G passed by the Appellate Authority with directions to re-
consider the case of the respondents. However, the High 
Court also specifically directed the Appellate Authority to 
take a decision and award "minor punishment" as given 
in case of the other three employees. 
H 
LUCKNOW K. GRAMIN BANK (NOW ALLAHABAD, U.P. 
311 
GRAMIN BANK) v. RAJENDRA SINGH 
This specific direction to the Appellate Authority was 
A 
challenged before this Court. 
The question that arose for consideration was 
whether the High Court was justified in giving such a 
mandamus or it should have referred the matter back to 
B 
the appellant-Bank with direction to take a fresh decision 
in the matter. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD:1.1. It is the Disciplinary Authority, or the 
C 
Appellate Authority in appeal, which is to decide the 
nature of punishment to be given to a delinquent 
employee keeping in view the seriousness of the 
misconduct committed by such an employee. Courts 
cannot assume and usurp the function of the Disciplinary 
D 
Authority. [Para 12] [320-G-H] 
1.2. The Judicial Review of the quantum of 
punishment is available with a very limited scope. It is only 
when the penalty imposed appears to be shocking 
disproportionate to the nature of misco

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.