IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15715 of 2008 UMA SHANKAR PRASAD . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 30.7.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner who was the Assistant Accountant at Jehanabad Treasury at the relevant point of time is aggrieved by his order of dismissal from service dated 9.9.2008. The petitioner was earlier placed under suspension on 22.11.2004 which was then revoked on 26.7.2006. The departmental proceedings were directed to continue. On 19.9.2006, he was served with memo of five charges. He replied to the same. The enquiry report came to be submitted on 12.2.2008 holding him guilty of negligence in discharging duties by not being cautious in passing bills in the Treasury for payment to the beneficiaries. The second show cause followed duly replied to when the punishment order has been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegations relate to certain bills received from the office of the Accountant General, payment for which was to be made through the Jehanabad Treasury. Referring to Rule 60 of the Bihar Treasury Code, Volume- 2 1, it was submitted that the duties of an Assistant Accountant are provided as follows:- “60. The accountant is responsible under the orders of the Treasury Officer for keeping complete records of cash and book transactions of the district and subordinate treasuries and for the compilation of prescribed accounts and returns strictly in accordance with the directions and orders in force. He is also required to see that the rules and orders in force are observed in respect of all transactions of the treasury and to bring all cases of irregularities to the notice of the Treasury Officer.” Rule 185 of the Bihar Treasure Code provides the duties of the Treasury Officer which reads as follows:- “185. With regard to claims presented either or bills or on cheques, the signature of the Drawing Officer and of the countersigning officer, in case there is countersignature also, shall be compared with his specimen signature received under rules 29 and 148, and the Treasury Officer shall satisfy himself that the signature is genuine and in order before payment is ordered by him. In the case of payments to be made on the authority of an order purporting to have been issued from the office of an Accountant General, the Treasury Officer shall verify the signature on the order by comparison with the specimen signature of the signing officer received under rule 178. Note:- Specimen signature received by the Treasury Officer should be carefully pasted in guard-files which must be kept in the personal custody of the Treasury Officer.” With all fairness it was submitted that the petitioner is an Officer subordinate in rank to the 3 Treasury Officer. Petitioner had the duty for keeping the complete records of cash and book transaction and for compilation of the accounts strictly in accordance with the directions and orders in force. He was also required to observe if all procedures were followed in respect of all transaction in the treasury and to bring all cases of irregularities to the attention of the Treasury Officer. The rules itself provided that the petitioner was to function under the control of the Treasury Officer. The Treasury Officer was required to compare the signature on the bills or cheques presented with the specimen signature and satisfy himself that the signatures were genuine and then alone order payment. In respect of payment or payment authority or payment order issued from the office of the Accountant General. Rule 185 specifically imposes the responsibility on the Treasury Officer to verify the signature on the order by comparison with the specimen signature of the signing officer. The note below the rule cautions that it is the Treasury Officer who is required to keep the specimen signatures in the guard-files in his personal custody. The submission is that both the Assistant Accountant and the Treasury Officer were to work together in clearing the bills. The signatures and approval of the Assistant Accountant was insufficient. 4 Under the Treasury Code the Treasury Officer had further responsibility being an officer superior in rank. Rule 185 impose additional responsibility on him more particularly with regard to bills and payment orders received from the office of the Accountant General. The charges against the petitioner and the Treasury Officer related to the same bills. The petitioner has specifically asserted in writ petition at Paragraph 27 that the Treasury Officer Jehanabad, Shri Prabhakar Prasad Singh was exonerated in the enquiry. Dealing with the same the respondents in their counter affidavit at Paragraph-20 have stated that no doubt Shri Singh was exonerated but the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and stoppage of promotion for two years. The counter affidavit states that the punishment imposed upon the Treasury Officer cannot be treated at par because the Accountant has more responsibility in passing the bills. This Court has no hesitation in holding that the assertion made in the counter affidavit reflects a complete mis-appreciation of the provisions of the Treasury Code in light of the discussion contained in the order aforesaid. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment reported in 2001(10) SCC 590 (Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Jitendra Pd. Singh 5 & Anr.) that where three workmen were proceeded on almost identical charges, variation in punishment varying from suspension of one to dismissal of another was not proper. Reliance has further been placed upon (2010) 5 SCC 783 (State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Raj Pal Singh) holding at Paragraphs 5 and 6 as follows:- “5. Though, on principle the ratio in aforesaid cases would ordinarily apply, but in the case in hand, the High Court appears to have considered the nature of charges leveled against the five employees who stood charged on account of the incident that happened on the same day and then the High Court came to the conclusion that since the gravity of charges was the same, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to impose different punishments for different delinquents. The reasoning given by the High Court cannot be faulted with since the State is not able to indicate as to any difference in the delinquency of these employees.” “6. It is undoubtedly open for the disciplinary authority to deal with the delinquency and once charges are established to award appropriate punishment. But when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the impugned order requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.” In A.I.R. 2008 SC 2481 (Man Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.) the Supreme Court at Paragraph-19 has held as follows:- “19. We may reiterate the settled position 6 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. Equal is 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. We have, therefore, examined the case of the appellant in the light of the established doctrine of equality and fair play. The principle is the same, namely, that there should be no discrimination between the appellant and HC Vijay Pal as regards the criteria of punishment of similar nature in departmental proceedings. The appellant and HC Vijay Pal were both similarly situated, in fact, HC Vijay Pal was the real culprit who, besides departmental proceedings, was an accused in the excise case filed against him by the Excise Staff of Andhra Pradesh for violating the Excise Prohibition Orders operating in the State. The appellate authority exonerated HC Vijay Pal mainly on the ground of his acquittal by the criminal court in the Excise case and after exoneration, he has been promoted to the higher post, whereas the appeal and the revision filed by the appellant against the order of punishment have been rejected on technical ground that he has not exercised proper and effective control over HC Vijay Pal at the time of commission of the Excise offence by him in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The order of the disciplinary authority would reveal that for the last 7 about three decades the appellant has served the Police Department of Haryana in different capacity with unblemished record of service.” In light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has been singled out for a different onerous punishment. The enquiry report does not in any event hold him guilty of interpolations but merely that he was not cautious in scrutinizing the bills. In fact, the presenting officer supported the delinquent by stating that all procedures were followed in so far as the Accountant was concerned. The order of punishment dated 9.9.2008 is accordingly set aside. That brings us to the issue of the quantum of punishment. In normal circumstances, that is the jurisdiction of the employer and not for the Courts to interfere except for cogent reason. The bills in question for which the petitioner as the Assistant Accountant and the Treasury Officer were proceeded with were common. The Treasury Officer has been let off with a lesser punishment. In the case of Raj Pal Singh (supra) relied upon by the petitioner the objection that the High Court should not have interfered with the quantum of punishment to bring parity in the punishment was rejected by the Supreme Court. If the petitioner 8 represents for back wages and claims parity in respect thereof with the Treasury Officer, the respondents are bound to accord him equal treatment on that account also. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)