Summary
The Supreme Court converted a bank officer’s removal from service to compulsory retirement on parity with two other officers disciplined for substantially identical loan irregularities. No mala fides had been proved, and the officers shared reliance on approved professional reports concerning the same fraudster. The proposed distinction based on pension versus provident-fund options lacked justification, especially since the Bank admitted that compulsory retirement and the compassionate allowance already granted would produce the same pension payment.
Issues
- When unequal disciplinary penalties justify judicial intervention on parity grounds.
- Whether the appellant’s role or pension option justified removal rather than compulsory retirement.
Held
- Judicial review of disciplinary punishment is limited. A parity claim requires comparison of the proven charges and subsequent conduct, including matters such as admission, remorse or apology; identical treatment cannot be demanded merely by comparing penalty labels. (¶ 6–8)
- On these facts, the three officers’ roles were practically identical. No mala fides were proved, and their cases shared reliance on approved advocates’ and valuers’ reports concerning the same person who perpetrated the fraud. (¶¶ 10–11, 14–15)
- The pension-option distinction did not justify the harsher penalty. The Bank acknowledged that the appellant’s existing compassionate allowance equalled the two-thirds pension he would receive on compulsory retirement, leaving no financial difference to explain the differential treatment. (¶ 12–15)
- The established parity justified converting the penalty to compulsory retirement rather than retaining the more adverse characterisation of removal from service. (¶ 15–16)
Result
Appeal allowed, parties to bear their own costs. Removal from service converted to compulsory retirement.