IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1381 of 2009 Ram Phal Rai . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, a Home guard on election duty was subjected to proceedings and an order of punishment debarring him from duties for life came to be passed on 14.3.2002. The petitioner questioned the same in C.W.J.C. No. 13273 of 2003. This Court on 8.9.2004 concluded that the petitioner had been denied due opportunity to defend himself, set aside the punishment and remanded the matter for a fresh decision. The petitioner thereafter represented on 22.1.2005. At Paragraph-9 of his representation he raised a specific defence that while he was posted as a Home guard under a Sub-Inspector who was likewise departmentally proceeded with on the same charges had been visited with a much lesser punishment of withholding two increments equivalent to one black mark. The petitioner has been visited with a much more harsh and severe punishment. That aspect has not been considered by the order passed by the authority on 12.1.2007 communicated to him on 30.3.2007. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in aspect of punishment Article 14 applies with equal force. If the Sub-Inspector under whose charge the petitioner was functioning as a Constable was visited with a lesser punishment, the petitioner is entitled to be given similar treatment and there is no discussion in the impugned order distinguishing his case and role so as to visit with him a harsher punishment. The applicability of Article 14 even on the aspect of punishment stands explained by the Supreme Court in (1998)2 SCC 407 (Director General of Police Vs. G. Dasayan) Paragraphs 8 and 9 holding that :- “8…………. The third ground that the co-delinquents except the Head Constable were let off though the charges were identical, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer so far as those two delinquents were concerned. However, the Head Constable, who was also charged along with the respondent, was compulsorily retired by the Disciplinary Authority. 9. Mr. Murlidhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while agreeing with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants on the first two grounds, submitted that the order of dismissal at any rate cannot be sustained and if at all an order of compulsory retirement as was made in the case of the Head Constable, who was tried along with the respondent, has to be imposed.” In absence of any discussion in the impugned order as to why the petitioner was required to be visited with a 3 harsher punishment than the Sub-Inspector under whose jurisdiction he was functioning when the status, role and responsibility of the Sub-Inspector was higher than that of the petitioner, the Court finds it difficult to sustain the impugned quantum of punishment. It is accordingly set aside to that extent only. The matter is remanded to the respondents to consider and pass a fresh appropriate order of punishment commensurate with that given to his superior. The writ application stands allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J. )