Summary
The Supreme Court rejected reduction of disciplinary penalties based solely on parity with other employees. Similar charge language did not erase substantial differences in the number of improperly verified bills and resulting loss. Courts could not substitute their preferred penalty absent shocking disproportionality. The High Court writ appeals were restored for consideration of the other challenges, with an expedited decision requested and all non-parity contentions left open.
Issues
- Whether similar charges required identical penalties despite materially different gravity and consequences.
- What scope remained for judicial review and further adjudication.
Held
- The nature, extent and consequences of misconduct were legitimate disciplinary considerations. The two employees’ cases involved substantially more bills and much greater amounts than the proposed comparators, so parity did not justify reducing their penalties. (¶¶ 10, 11, 14, 15)
- Penalty selection belongs to the employer’s disciplinary discretion. A court cannot replace it with what it regards as suitable unless the penalty is shockingly disproportionate to the proved charges. (¶ 16)
- Because the High Court had acted only on parity, its judgment was set aside and the writ appeals restored to consider the other challenges to the disciplinary findings and outcome. Those contentions remained open. (¶¶ 17, 18, 20)
- In view of the employees’ retirement, the High Court was requested to expedite disposal and endeavour to decide within six months after a certified copy was placed on its record. (¶ 19)
Result
Appeals disposed of without costs. High Court judgment set aside and writ appeals restored for fresh consideration of all grounds other than the rejected parity reasoning; expedited disposal requested.