Patna High Court CWJC No.7127 of 2010 (3) dt.18-10-2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7127 of 2010 ====================================================== Ranjit Singh .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh Mr. Navjot Yeshu For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Aag3) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA) 3 18-10-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.3.2011 dismissing him from service in exercise of powers under Article-311(2) of the Constitution without holding any proceedings in view of his conviction by the Special Judge, C.B.I. at Ranchi in a criminal prosecution under Section-420 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section-13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act with regard to alleged discharge of duties as an Assistant/Treasury Officer giving rise to Mango P.S. Case No.30/96/R.C. No.23A of 1996 by the C.B.I. The petitioner has preferred an appeal against his conviction before the Jharkhand High Court and is stated to be on bail. Patna High Court CWJC No.7127 of 2010 (3) dt.18-10-2011 The primary thrust of argument on behalf of the petitioner is that even in matters of punishment there cannot be any hostile discrimination to subject those similarly situated to different punishments. It is submitted that Shri Kunj Bihari Thakur, Shri Ashok Kumar Singh and Shri Shailendra Kumar Kashyap who were also Assistant/Treasury Officers like the petitioner were likewise proceeded with and have been convicted by the Court of the Special Judge under the Indian Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act. Shri Kunj Bihari Thakur has been permitted to honourably superannuate. Shri Ashok Kumar Singh is still in service and Shri Shailendra Kumar Kashyap has been proceeded with departmentally. The counter affidavit does not deny the assertions with regard to Shri Kunj Bihari Thakur and Shri Ashok Kumar Singh. Dealing with Shri Kashyap the counter affidavit suggests that the respondents had taken a particular stand before this Court in certain proceedings to hold departmental proceedings against him, but had subsequently opined to prefer a Review application. What happened thereafter has not been placed before the Court. The aspect for applicability of the principles enshrined in Article-14 of the Constitution of India with regard to parity in punishment of similarly situated has adequately been noticed by the Supreme Court in (2008) 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.7127 of 2010 (3) dt.18-10-2011 SCC 74 (Akhilesh Kumar Singh vs. State of Jharkhand) at paragraph 15 as follows:- “15. It is true that delinquent officers similarly situated should be dealt with similarly and thus if the charges against the employees are identical, it is desirable that they be dealt with similarly.” If what the petitioner contends be correct, let the respondents consider his grievances in light of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court noticed above. Let such consideration be done and disposed off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with a representation. Suffice it to only observe that a conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be subjected to sub-classification. To facilitate the passing of such fresh order by the respondents the impugned order 12.3.2010 is set aside. It does not result in the reinstatement of the petitioner which shall necessarily have to abide by such fresh order that may be passed by the respondents. The application stands disposed. Krishna Chandra Jha/- (Navin Sinha, J)