IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLCIATION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.9266 of 1997 MAHENDRA PD.CHAUHAN S/O SHANKAR PRASAD CHAUHAN R/O VILLAGE-CHATERPUR, PO- BARI MALLAMA, PS.- BIND, DISTT- NALANDA--------------PETITIONER Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECY. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL-CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE FORCES, OLD SECRETARIATE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE FORCES, CENTRAL ZONE, PATNA 4. THE COMMANDANT, BIHAR MILITARY POLICE-2 DEHRI-ON-SONE- -------------------------------RESPONDENTS. ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr.Devendra Kumar Sinha, Sr.Advt. Mr. S.R.Sinha, Advocate For the State: Mr. Kumar Alok, SC-19 ----------- P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ***** A.K.Tripathi,J Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Four persons were charged with identical charges. The primary charge was that they are living in a barrack unauthorizedly taking advantage of the absence of constables who were sent on duty. The petitioner along with three others opened the locks of those persons whose articles were kept in the barrack, stole some money and also stole a bottle of rum and went into a celebration mode every night. Enquiry was held, the charges were said to have been established and the order of punishment of discharge from service was passed so far as the present petitioner was concerned. The punishment order is annexure-3 to the writ application. His appeal and memorial have also been rejected. Left - 2 - with no option petitioner approached this High Court challenging those decisions. Many submissions have been made in the manner in which the proceeding was conducted and the kind of evidence which came during the course of enquiry. There never was evidence against the petitioner of having broken/opened the locks of the boxes, of other constables and stealing money. It was never clearly established against the present petitioner though the finding that he was illegally or unauthorizedly staying in the barrack and was part of merry making is not in dispute. Two folds submissions taking the line of least resistance urged at the bar by learned counsel representing the present petitioner is (1) whether the finding and the allegations are serious enough to warrant punishment of discharge/dismissal from service and (2) whether it is open to the respondents to apply two yard sticks in the matter of imposition of punishment. The petitioner has been given ultimate punishment on cursory kind of finding, of dismissal whereas yet another person, namely, Binod Gond has virtually walked free with imposition of lighter punishment of withholding increment with cumulative effect for two years amounting to three black marks. The order of punishment has been brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit contained in annexure-6. Based on the evidence and the submission made on the two kinds of punishment which has came to be imposed in - 3 - an identical situation, the Court is with the counsel for the petitioner on this score that two different yard sticks had been applied or adopted in the matter of award of punishment. If four persons came to be dealt with a set of charge then there can not be such a big variance when it came down to the quantum of punishment. The diverse nature of punishment by itself makes order of dismissal from service arbitrary. The allegations that two yard sticks were adopted is apparently clear from reading two orders of punishment which are identical in terms of the narration except for consequence and the imposition of punishment. Taking the entirety of the charge as well the evidence the punishment seems to be disproportionate to the misconduct alleged. This is yet another ground on which the matter requires interference. The Court has intentionally not gone into or taken note of other objection with regard to the departmental enquiry because the two submissions by themselves are enough for interference with the order of punishment. The punishment order contained in annexure-3, the order of appeal contained in annexure-4 as well as the rejection order of memorial contained in annexure-5 are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority with a direction that he shall pass any other order of punishment keeping in mind the kind of punishment which has been imposed on Binod Gond. The Court expects an order in this regard within a reasonable time frame. - 4 - This writ application is allowed with the above direction. However, there will be no order as to costs. Patna High Court, Patna Dated the 12th August, 2010 NAFR/RPS/Sr. Secy. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)