AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the
Bank.
The essence of the submission made on behalf of the
petitioner is that one Mr P C Gupta was also proceeded against for
substantially similar charges as have been leveled against the
petitioner. The substance of the charges was of sharing their user ID
and password with an outsider of the Bank, namely, Mr Mukesh
Kumar Rai, who was at that point of time temporarily discharging the
responsibility of some computerization work, which led to fraudulent
transaction. The Bank alleged complicity of the petitioner as also the
said Mr P C Gupta. He submits that subsequently the said Mukesh
Kumar Rai had owned up the responsibility and made good whatever
financial loss had been occasioned to the Bank. The counsel draws
attention of the Court towards the order passed by the disciplinary
authority in the case of Mr P C Gupta wherein the disciplinary
authority has inflicted the punishment of "dismissed without notice"
vide order dated 09.10.2009, the petitioner, vide order of the same
date, has been awarded the punishment :
"Removed from service with superannuation benefits i e Pension and or Provident Fund and Gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules or Regulations prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment."
He submits that though the disciplinary authority had
considered the case of the said P C Gupta for award of harsher
punishment, the appellate authority vide order dated 03.02.2011 had
lowered the punishment inflicted by the disciplinary authority and
reduced it :
"Be brought down the lower stages in the time scale of pay up to two stages till the superannuation of CSE i e 30.06.2023 under clause 6 (e) of Memorandum and Settlement of Workmen; Disciplinary Act ion Procedure dated 10.04.2002."
He submits that though the disciplinary authority had
recommended lighter punishment upon the petitioner, but in case of
petitioner, the appellate authority, vide order dated 23rd of March
2011, has not lowered the punishment awarded by the disciplinary
authority resulting in graver punishment than what was awarded to Mr
P C Gupta. He alleges disparity in award of punishment.
Submission is that the authorities, while considering
the appeal, had not maintained parity in respect of the two petitioners
even though the charges against them were similar but the petitioner
was given graver punishment.
The law in this regard has been placed by the counsel
for the Bank in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (now
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) and Another -Versus-
Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 Supreme Court Cases 372. The Apex
Court has discussed and summed up the law in this regard as to how,
when two employees are proceeded against in respect of
similar/identical charges, are to be considered for award of
punishment. This aspect of the matter has not been raised before the
appellate authority even though the order of the appellate authority in
the case of Mr P C Gupta had been passed by the disciplinary
authority on 03.02.2011 whereas the petitioner''s case had been
considered by the appellate authority in March, 2011.
Since the parity or disparity of charges and other
issues can well be considered by the appellate authority, the petitioner
would be at liberty to make a representation before the appellate
authority for reconsideration of the punishment awarded to him at the
appellate stage in the light of the admitted legal position as discussed
in the said judgment of the Apex Court.
If the petitioner submits his representation within a
period of four weeks from today, the same may be considered by the
disciplinary authority within a period of eight weeks thereafter and the
same be disposed of by a considered and reasoned order in accordance
with law.
This writ application is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.