E-Paper
Haryana: Excessive, unwarranted punishment violation of right to equality: HC
The Punjab and Haryana high court has modified punishment awarded to a retired bank employee observing that excessive, unwarranted punishment is violation of right to equality.
The Punjab and Haryana high court has modified punishment awarded to a retired bank employee observing that excessive, unwarranted punishment is violation of right to equality.
“…any penalty imposed upon a delinquent employee in disciplinary proceedings must bear a just and reasonable relationship to the gravity of the misconduct established against them. A punishment which is excessive significantly disproportionate to the proven charges not only offends the canons of fair play and reasonableness but also constitutes a violation of the fundamental right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution of India,” the bench of justice HS Brar observed while dealing with the plea of a retired bank employee.
The petitioner, Purshutam Goel was a bank employee in Haryana. He retired in May 2013. Few days before his retirement he was issued a charge sheet on the grounds that he made improper recommendations for sanction of loans in 2011. It was also alleged that he recommended sanctioning of 42 loans during deputation in another branch and out of that 33 accounts were irregular/overdue in May 2012.
A chargesheet was served and after his response an inquiry officer recommended disciplinary action on four charges and exonerated him on six charges out of total 10 charges. Acting on the report, the punishing authority ordered major punishment of reduction of pay scale by 21 stages ₹29,700 to pay scale of ₹14,500.
In high court he had argued that petitioner was not the sanctioning authority and he had only recommended the loans. As such punishment awarded is highly disproportionate, he had argued in his 2015 petition.
The court observed that respondents have failed to place on record any conclusive finding or material to demonstrate that the alleged misconduct resulted in a quantifiable financial loss to the bank. He has only recommended and not sanctioned any of these loans. A reduction of pay scale by 21 stages is a severe penalty, impacting the financial security of a retired employee for life, the court remarked.
“..scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings is very limited. The court can interfere only when disciplinary actions are arbitrary, disproportionate with procedural illegality or manifest prejudice,” it said, adding that the petitioner was a responsible officer and some lapse may have occurred. It would not be appropriate to quash the entire proceedings, it further added. Hence, the court modified the penalty and ordered deduction of 5% from the monthly pension for a period of five years from the date of issuance of order imposing penalty in April 2014. It further ordered that his pension and arrears be released with 6% interest per annum within six weeks.
