GUWAHATI, India, Sept. 15 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Aug. 14:

1. Heard Mr. R. J. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents.

2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner is assailing, inter alia, the order of major penalty dated 29.11.2019 and the appellate order dated 01.06.2020.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, while serving as MMGS-II (Deputy Manager) at the Regional Business Office, Guwahati (Rural) in the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the "SBI"), was placed under suspension, and after holding disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner was awarded with the penalty of dismissal from service by final order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the respondent authorities. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the appellate authority; however, the same was rejected by order dated 01.06.2020. Aggrieved by the impugned order of penalty and the appellate authority's order of upholding the penalty of dismissal, the present writ petition has been filed.

4. Mr. R. J. Das, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner, submits that two other employees of the respondent bank were also charge-sheeted along with the petitioner for the same incident; however, lesser punishment was awarded to the other two delinquents. He further submits that the allegations leveled against the three delinquents, including the petitioner, were identical and similar; however, stringent and maximum punishment of dismissal from service was awarded in respect of the petitioner, while lesser punishment was awarded against the other two delinquent employees. He accordingly submits that the respondents have treated the case of the petitioner in a discriminatory manner for which the impugned order of penalty requires to be interfered with. In support of the aforesaid submissions, he relies upon the following decisions of the Apex Court: -

(i) Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Jitendra Pd. Singh and another, reported in (2001) 10 SCC 530.

(ii) Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Bank of India and Ors., reported in (2019) 15 SCC 786.

(iii) State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., v. Raj Pal Singh, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 783.

4.1. He further submits that the findings of the disciplinary authority are also perverse inasmuch as, in respect of some of the allegations, there was no evidence, and further relevant evidence was also not taken into account by the disciplinary authority.

5. Per contra, Mr. H. Buragohain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, submits that though the allegations relate to the same incident, there is a material distinction in the case of the alleged irregularities against the petitioner as compared to the other two employees. He further submits that the allegation in respect of the petitioner being more serious than that of the other two employees, the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority is proportionate to the gravamen of the charges and therefore warrants no interference from this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=U%2BbhtlrLe2adAHN8Tz%2F1d%2BG6DXMtsd4vqMkGu%2FkglwC%2BZVOgaFjxmTtn%2BXRnQ0Md&caseno=WP(C)/3886/2020&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010129592020&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.