IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5464 of 2010 1. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH S/O CHHATU SINGH R/O VILLAGE + P.O CHHOTA SASARAM, P.S - UDWANTNAGAR, DISTRICT - BHOJPUR (ARA) AT PRESENT POSTED AS CONSTABLE RAIL DISTRICT KATIHAR. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,BIHAR. 2. DEPUTY DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RAILWAY,BIHAR, PATNA. 3. RAIL POLICE SUPERINTENDENT,KATIHAR 4. RAIL POLICE INSPECTOR CUM ENQUIRING OFFICER BARAUNI CIRCLE, RAIL DISTRICT-KATIHAR ----------- 2. 26.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 6.8.2008, stopping two increments equivalent to three black marks and further that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension as affirmed by the appellate order dated 27.5.2009. The allegations relate to certain dereliction in discharge of duties as a Police Constable on duty as a Train Escort along with others. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a limited submission from Paragraph-14 of the writ petition that two others namely Nagendra Rai and Hiralal Ram on duty along with him have also been proceeded with in similar manner but they have been 2 given a lesser punishment by stoppage of increment only. The impugned order notices the proceeding against them in case No. 25 of 2007 and 26 of 2007 but does not record any finding for the reasons that a different treatment was meted out to the petitioner on similar allegations and findings. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit. The pleadings in Paragraph-11 acknowledge the correctness of the recitals contained in Annexure-1 and does not also place any materials for the reasons why on the same charges a higher punishment has been given to the petitioner. Even where an issue of punishment in a departmental proceeding is concerned, opportunity of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India has equal application. If more than one delinquent has been faced with same charge, same set of evidence, there shall be no justification for differential punishment unless there be sufficient grounds for distinction. The justification has to be considered and spelt out in the order itself. In (2008) 12 SCC 331 (Man Singh v. State of Haryana), discussing the aspect of discrimination in imposition of punishment the Supreme Court has held at Paragraph 20 as follows:- 3 “20. We may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equals have to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action. The administrative action is to be just on the test of “fair play’ and reasonableness.” The impugned orders dated 6.8.2008 and 27.5.2009, are therefore not sustainable in their present form. They are accordingly set aside and the matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order on the issue of discrimination within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. No other ground has been urged to assail the impugned order. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)