As per case facts, a senior bank manager was dismissed from service for conniving with an officer and a gunman to misappropriate customer money and steal bank records. His co-delinquents ... received lesser punishments: compulsory retirement for the gunman and a two-stage pay reduction for the officer. The High Court, citing discrimination and parity, converted the manager's dismissal to compulsory retirement, which the bank appealed. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in modifying the punishment based on parity, given the differing roles of the delinquents. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that the High Court's interference was erroneous. It found that the bank manager, being a higher-ranking official with greater responsibility and trust, could not be equated with his subordinates. The differentiation in punishment was logical, not disproportionate, and did not shock the conscience of the court, thereby restoring the original dismissal from service.