LexPUNJAB & SIND BANK versus SH. RAJ KUMAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2026] 4 S.C.R. 350 : 2026 INSC 313 Punjab & Sind Bank v. Sh. Raj Kumar (Civil Appeal No. 847 of 2026) 02 April 2026 [Dipankar Datta* and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the imposition of lighter punishment on the co-delinquents while imposing the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ upon the respondent is in outright defiance of logic. Headnotes† Punjab and Sind Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1981 – Dismissal from service – Allegation that respondent connived with two others (one officer and a gunman) 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 punishment of dismissal was imposed on the respondent (senior manager at the relevant time) – Writ petition – The Single Judge of the High Court modified the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ imposed upon the respondent to ‘compulsory retirement’ on the ground of discrimination in imposition of punishment thereby offending Art.14 of the Constitution – Same was affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court – Correctness: Held: The imposition of lighter punishment on the co-delinquents while imposing the punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ upon the respondent is not in outright defiance of logic – Sight cannot be lost of the fact that the respondent, when he committed the offence, was holding the post of “Senior Manager in MMGS-III Scale”, which is obviously much higher than the codelinquents * Author [2026] 4 S.C.R. 351 Punjab & Sind Bank v. Sh. Raj Kumar (officer and gunman) – Authority carries accountability; higher the authority, higher the accountability – The rank of the respondent was not merely titular; it carried with it an increased degree of responsibility and integrity – The role of the respondent not only necessitated personal obedience but also supervision of the actions of the subordinates – The co-delinquents, having limited powers and authority, could not have been equated with the respondent – The gravity of the misconduct necessarily had to be measured with the nature of the misconduct – Thus, grant of the benefit of parity to the respondent by the High Court merely because the co-delinquents were given lighter punishment was entirely misconceived – The disciplinary authority found it prudent in the circumstances to impose a harsher punishment on a higher- ranking official – The High Court clearly fell in error in the course of adjudication of the lis – The interference by the Single Judge with the decision of the disciplinary authority, since affirmed by the Division Bench vide the impugned order, was uncalled for – The punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority (namely, dismissal from service) imposed on the respondent is restored. [Paras 12-14, 17, 18] Service Law – Interference with an order of punishment imposed – Power of Judicial review: Held: Normally, no court in exercise of its power of judicial review should interfere with an order of punishment imposed on a delinquent as a measure of disciplinary action by the competent authority and substitute its own judgment for that of the former – This is premised on the reason that the disciplinary authority is the best judge of the situation, and the requirements of maintaining discipline within the work force – However, interference could be warranted if 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 Art.14 of the Constitution – Judicial scrutiny and interference, if at all, has to be based on reasons in support of the court’s ultimate satisfaction that the disciplinary authority has faltered in the exercise of his discretion. [Paras 9-12] 352 [2026] 4 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh (1983) 2 SCC 442; Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India [1988] 1 SCR 512 : (1987) 4 SCC 611; B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [1995] Supp. 4 SCR 644 : (1995) 6 SCC 749; Union of India v. G. Ganayutham [1997] Supp. 3 SCR 549 : (1997) 7 SCC 463; Om Kumar v. Union of India [2000] Supp. 4 SCR 693 : (2001) 2 SCC 386; Union of India v. R.K. Sharma [2001] Supp. 3 SC
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.