LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Naresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Bank of India & Ors.

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 553Decided 22 Apr 2019
Civil Appeal No. 4037 of 2019
Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul · Justice Indira Banerjee

Background

The appellant, a Bank of India officer, was removed from service after an inquiry found procedural lapses in loans he sanctioned or recommended, which turned into bad loans causing a likely loss of about Rs. 70 lakh to the bank, all connected to one fraudulent borrower. Two other officers involved with the same fraudulent party, facing similar or even larger losses, were instead given the lesser punishment of compulsory retirement rather than removal. The appellant challenged his harsher punishment on the ground of parity, and his challenge having failed up to the disciplinary appellate stage, he approached the Supreme Court limited to the question of whether his punishment should be reduced to match the other two officers.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that while courts have very limited power to interfere with the quantum of departmental punishment, an exception exists where a co-delinquent employee facing identical or more serious charges was given a lesser punishment: the "doctrine of equality" then permits correction, provided there is complete parity in both the charges and the employees' conduct afterward. Examining the record, the Court found no real difference between the appellant's role and that of the two other officers (all three were tied to the same fraudulent borrower, and no dishonest intent was proved against any of them), and found the bank's stated reason for treating him more harshly, his pension option rather than provident fund, made no actual financial difference to the bank. Concluding there was no justifiable basis for the disparity, the Court allowed the appeal and converted the appellant's punishment from "removal from service" to "compulsory retirement," on par with the other two officers.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not normally second-guess the severity of a departmental punishment, but if an employee can show that colleagues with identical or worse misconduct received a lighter punishment with no real basis for the difference, that disparity can be corrected on the principle of equal treatment.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case