Punjab & Sind Bank v. Sh. Raj Kumar  2026 INSC 313 - Disciplinary Proceedings - Parity - Punishment

Disciplinary Proceedings -The greater the trust reposed, the stricter the scrutiny imposed -The differentiation in rank coupled with the increased trust of the employer on the employee constitutes a compelling ground for a more stringent punishment to be imposed on him. [ Context: The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court was justified in reducing the punishment of a Senior Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank from dismissal to compulsory retirement on the ground of parity with two co‑delinquents - The Court held that a higher‑ranking officer, entrusted with greater responsibility and supervisory obligations, can legitimately receive a harsher penalty than lower‑ranked co‑delinquents for the same incident. Finding no perversity or irrationality in the bank’s decision to dismiss the respondent, the Court set aside the High Court’s orders and restored the punishment of dismissal from service.]

Constitution of India - Article 14, 226 - Disciplinary Proceedings - 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. interference could be warranted if it appeals to the court that the disciplinary authority has ‘used a sledgehammer for cracking a nut’. 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 Article 14 -Where a court, upon due consideration, arrives at the conclusion that the punishment imposed is disproportionate, its intervention is circumscribed in nature. 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. In such a situation, the court may adopt one of two courses: it may remit the matter to the competent authority for reconsideration of the punishment; or, in the rarest of cases, it may substitute the punishment while supporting such a course with cogent reasons.. (Para 8-10)