IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.17523 of 2009 1. UMESH KUMAR S/O SHRI NATHUNI CHOUDHARY R/O VILL.- AHIYAPUR, NEW ZERO MILE, PRAKASH PATH, P.O.- BHIKANPUR, P.S.- AHIYAPUR, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, OLD SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-DIRECTOR, BIHAR POLICE ACADEMY, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (PERSONNEL) OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE PRINCIPAL, CONSTABLE TRAINING SCHOOL (CTS), NATHNAGAR, BHAGALPUR 6. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CONSTABLE TRAINING SCHOOL (CTS), NATHNAGAR, BHAGALPUR 7. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BIHAR POLICE ACADEMY, PATNA ----------- 2. 23.02.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner is stated to be a trainee Sub Inspector of Police in the State of Bihar on probation. Certain occurrence is said to have taken place at the time of training resulting into death of a co-trainee leading to protest by other trainees including the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed on 26.6.2009 on two years probation. The probation has been terminated simpliciter by order dated 6.10.2009. Reserving the right to contest that the termination was not simpliciter as mentioned in the order and to raise the veil if the occasion arises that it was in context of the aforesaid occurrence as a measure of punishment, presently the limited submission is based on information made available to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act that he is similarly situated as certain other trainee Sub Inspectors who were found to be allegedly actively involved in the protest, notwithstanding which they have been meted out different treatment inasmuch as 2 they have not been removed, details whereof are mentioned in Para 30, 31 and 32 of the writ application supported from the materials furnished under the Right to Information Act. The submission therefore is that there is no justification for the respondents to meet out differential treatment to the petitioner for the same occurrence with the same level of involvement than those being retained in service notwithstanding their involvement also as per the respondents themselves. In (2008) 12 SCC 331 (Man Singh Vrs State of Haryana & ors.) the appellant was a Sub Inspector in the Police Department. He was a member of the party comprising a Police group which allegedly committed certain misdemeanor. He was subjected to punishment in a departmental proceeding. The delinquent questioned his punishment when no punishment was awarded to the main accused, also a member of the raiding party. The Supreme Court allowing the appeal observed as follows at Para 20, 21 and 22:- “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 tobe 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 tobe just on the test of “friar play” and reasonableness. 3 21. 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 similar 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 about three decades the appellant has served in the Police Department of Haryana in different capacity with unblemished record of service. 22. In the backdrop of the abovementioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon the appellant for exhibiting slackness in the discharge of duties during his visit to Hyderabad when HC Vijay Pal was found involved in excise offence, as also the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities confirming the said order are unfair, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and also against the doctrine of equality. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the precise legal questions raised by the appellant before it and dismissed the second appeal by an unreasoned judgment. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, confirming the judgments and decree of the first appellate court and that of the trial court is not sustainable. The appellant deserves to be treated equally in the matter of departmental punishment initiated against him for the acts of omissions and commissions vis-à-vis HC Vijay Pal, the driver of the vehicle.” Let the petitioner submit a fresh representation before the respondents concerned along with a copy of the present order when it is required to be disposed by a reasoned and speaking 4 order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed on the limited issue as discussed leaving all other issues for consideration at the appropriate stage should the occasion arise. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)