The Supreme Court on April 2, 2026, allowed the appeal filed by Punjab & Sind Bank and restored the order of dismissal from service imposed on its former Senior Manager, Sh. Raj Kumar. A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the judgment and order dated 11 September 2024 of the Delhi High Court, which had modified the punishment of dismissal to compulsory retirement on the ground of parity with co-delinquents.

The Court observed that the principle of parity under Article 14 cannot be invoked mechanically where the delinquent officer holds a higher post carrying greater responsibility and accountability. Authority, the Court emphasised, carries accountability; the higher the authority, the higher the accountability. The role of a Senior Manager in MMGS-III Scale not only necessitated personal obedience but also supervision of subordinates. The co-delinquents, being a lower-rank officer and a gunman, could not be equated with the respondent. The gravity of misconduct had to be measured with the nature of the misconduct and the position held by the delinquent.

The Court noted that the respondent was found guilty of conniving with two others to misappropriate customers’ money for personal gain and tampering with bank records. The disciplinary authority imposed dismissal on the respondent while awarding lighter punishments to the co-delinquents. The High Court had interfered solely on the ground of parity, holding the differential treatment discriminatory. The Supreme Court held that such interference was unwarranted. The punishment of dismissal could not be said to be shockingly disproportionate or perverse, and the disciplinary authority was the best judge of the situation in maintaining discipline within the workforce.

The Court reiterated the limited scope of judicial review in matters of punishment. Courts should not substitute their own conclusion on penalty unless the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the court. In the present case, the Court found no perversity or irrationality in the punishment imposed. The High Court clearly fell in error in the course of adjudication of the lis.

The facts leading to the appeal were that the respondent joined the bank as Clerk/Cashier in 1987 and rose to the post of Senior Manager. In December 2011, he was placed under suspension following allegations of connivance with a bank officer and a gunman in misappropriating funds. After a chargesheet, inquiry and appellate proceedings, he was dismissed from service on 25 November 2014. The respondent challenged the quantum of punishment on the ground of parity, as one co-delinquent was compulsorily retired and the other was awarded reduction in pay by two stages. The Single Judge modified the punishment to compulsory retirement. The Division Bench affirmed the same, leading to the bank’s appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Court clarified that while judicial review is available where punishment is strikingly disproportionate, courts must exercise restraint. The doctrine of proportionality is to be applied cautiously, and interference is justified only in extreme cases where the punishment is in outrageous defiance of logic. Merely because co-delinquents received lighter punishment does not entitle a higher-ranking officer to claim parity, particularly where the misconduct involves breach of trust at a supervisory level.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed. The order of dismissal from service imposed on the respondent was restored. The parties were directed to bear their own costs.

Case Title: Punjab & Sind Bank v. Sh. Raj Kumar
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 847 of 2026 (arising out of SLP(C) No. 23415 of 2025)
Date of Judgment: 02 April 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Click HERE for full Judgment