IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2642 of 2009 Satya Narain Singh . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3/ 08/07/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be a Home-Guard who was selected by a Committee and recommended for police duties after training as a Constable in accordance with Section-3(3) of the Home-Guards Act. He is aggrieved by the order dated 31.8.2007 of the District Commandant, Bihar Home-Guards at Vaishali dismissing him from service. It is submitted that on 20.7.2007 a First Information Report was lodged against the petitioner in his capacity of a driver of the patrol vehicle, along with an Assistant Sub-Inspector one Ram Naresh Singh under whose jurisdiction the petitioner was discharging duties. The common allegations related to the taking of money and abusing a vegetable vendor. While the petitioner has been dismissed from service without holding any departmental proceeding, there has been hostile discrimination inasmuch as Ram Naresh Singh was only suspended and then reinstated and has also retired. He was never subjected to any departmental proceeding, much less any order of punishment. Suspension is not a 2 punishment. A counter affidavit on behalf of the State is stated to have been affirmed on oath dated 5.5.2009 by one Shri Rizwanul Haque, District Commandant, Bihar Home-Guards, Vaishali. It is submitted that it could not be penned by the then State counsel and therefore the difficulty in filing it. Copy is acknowledged to have been served on the counsel for the petitioner. Let the counter affidavit be kept on record. In order to shorten the litigation, the Court permitted counsel for the State to place that affidavit before the Court since it had been affirmed on oath. There is no statement that any regular departmental proceeding was held. Dismissal is a major punishment. No person can be dismissed from service for any alleged dereliction of duty without holding a proper departmental proceeding in accordance with law. The second submission of hostile discrimination in punishment does not find place in the pleadings of the writ application and therefore the counter affidavit does not deal with it. The law stands well settled that even where aspects of punishment are concerned, Article-14 applies with equal force and there can be no discrimination in the 3 punishment without valid justification or reasons. Presently, the Court finds that the petitioner was the driver. The A.S.I. was an officer superior to him. The petitioner is stated to have dragged the vegetable vendor to the patrol vehicle in which the A.S.I. was sitting when both are alleged to have abused him and to have forcibly taken money from him. The responsibility was certainly higher with the A.S.I. to ensure that the petitioner committed no such acts except with his complicity. The impugned order of dismissal dated 31.8.2007 is therefore held to be unsustainable and is set aside. The matter is remanded to the District Commandant, Bihar Home-Guards, Vaishali and on a representation by the petitioner, after examination of facts with regard to the quantum of punishment on parity with Ram Naresh Singh, appropriate orders shall be passed within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The application is allowed only to the extent indicated. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)