The division bench of Delhi High Court reiterates proportionality principle for delinquent and co-delinquent employees

The brief facts of the case involve the petitioner employee being charged with the allegations of misconduct, and the appellant bank claimed that the employee in connivance with an officer and a gunman, engaged in financial misconduct for personal gains. In the disciplinary proceedings all three employees were held liable and the officer was penalized with two stage demotion, while the gunman was compulsorily retired and the petitioner employee was dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the quantum of punishment, the petitioner employee challenged the order of dismissal from service before the Single Judge bench. It was argued by the appellant bank that the employee being a branch manager held a position of greater responsibility compared to his co-delinquents, who were in lower ranks. However, the Single Judge found no substantial difference in the nature of charges. The charges against the petitioner employee and his co-delinquents related to same incidence and acts of connivance, hence all of them must be treated on same footing in terms of disciplinary action and punishment, further by applying proportionality principle it was observed the punishment must be commensurate with the nature of misconduct. The Single Judge modified the punishment of employee from dismissal to compulsory retirement, thereby entitling petitioner employee for pensionary benefits from his past service. The bank appealed against this order before the Division Bench. The Division Bench relying on the decision of Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Sri Sankar Prosad Ghosh and Anr. wherein it was held that livelihood is recognized as fundamental aspect of the right to life by observing dismissal from service renders employee unemployable and deprives them of livelihood resulting in civil death, in this LPA 410/2023 & CM APPL. 53223/2024, upheld the decision of the Single Judge Bench.