Imposition Of Punishment For Identical Allegations Cannot Be Discriminatory: Patna HC Modifies Penalty For Bank Of India Manager
|The Patna High Court modified the penalty imposed on a former Bank of India manager, observing that imposition of punishment for identical allegations cannot be discriminatory.
The Bench modified the penalty imposed on the ex-manager in the Junior Management Group of the Bank of India (Bank) from the penalty of dismissal from service to compulsory retirement. Noting that normally, the Court would not modify a penalty unless it was “shocking to the conscious of the Court,” the Bench stated that the case had been before the judicial forum since 2003 for more than a decade.
A Division Bench of Justice P. B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Pandey observed, “Merely, Nagendra Sharma was holding the post of Manager and Uma Shankar Divedi was holding the post of clerical cadre. Imposition of punishment cannot be so discriminatory to the extent that imposition of minor penalty on Uma Shankar Divedi while imposing major punishment of dismissal on Nagendra Sharma. Again, it is a matter of remand for the reasons that there is no proper analysis to what extent Nagendra Sharma is more responsible than Uma Shankar Divedi. Even assuming that duties and responsibilities of Nagendra Sharma as a Manager may be higher, in such circumstances, imposition of penalty of dismissal from service would be too harsh.”
Sr. Advocate Ajay Kumar Sinha represented the appellants, while Advocate Aditya Narain Singh appeared for the respondent.
There was an involvement of another employee of the Bank, however, the penalties imposed on the two employees were different despite their alleged involvement in the same “misdeed.” While the manager was dismissed from services, the other employee faced a minor penalty of withholding certain allowances.
The Court reviewed the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the manager in 1997. The proceedings had originally concluded with a dismissal order, following allegations of misconduct based on a preliminary vigilance inquiry conducted.
The Bench also noted that the Single Judge had set aside the dismissal order against the manager, directing the disciplinary authority to reassess the penalties to ensure non-discriminatory treatment between the two employees.
The Disciplinary authority in the guise of implementation of the Court orders, proceeded to impose the same penalty of dismissal from service.
“Even assuming that duties and responsibilities of Nagendra Sharma as a Manager may be higher, in such circumstances, imposition of penalty of dismissal from service would be too harsh. Normally, the Court will not modify penalty unless it is shocking to the conscious of the Court. However, the aforementioned principle is not attracted in the case in hand for the reasons that respondent-Nagendra Sharms is before judicial forum from the year 2003 and it is more than a decade,” the Court remarked.
Consequently, the Court held that the “imposition of penalty of dismissal would be too harsh and it is accordingly modified to that of compulsory retirement.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the appeal.
Cause Title: The Managing Director and CEO & Ors. v. Nagendra Sharma
Appearance:
Petitioner: Sr. Advocate Ajay Kumar Sinha; Advocates Dilkash Khan and Minu Kumari
Respondents: Advocates Aditya Narain Singh and Kundan Kumar Sinha