C.W.P. No. 9158 of 2011 (O&M) (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 9158 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 26.07.2011 Gurbachan Singh ..........Petitioner Versus Punjab State Power Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. ..........Respondents BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. BD Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. C.M. No. 9792 of 2011 This is an application for placing on record Annexure P-10. Application is allowed and Annexure P-10 is taken on record. C.W.P. No. 9158 of 2011 This petition has been filed for quashing of order dated 7.10.2005 passed by respondent No.2 whereby penalty of stoppage of eight increments with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner as well as order dated 23.5.2008 vide which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 7.10.2005 has been rejected. The sole ground of the petitioner in challenging order of imposition of penalty is that the punishment imposed upon the similarly situated employee, namely, Kulwinder Singh is lesser than the petitioner as in case of Kulwinder Singh four increments have been stopped, whereas, in the case of the petitioner, eight increments have been stopped. Learned C.W.P. No. 9158 of 2011 (O&M) (2) counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co. Ltd. Vs. Jintendra Pd. Singh and another (2001) 10 SCC 530 and State of U.P. Vs. Raj Pal Singh 2002 (1) S.C.T. 205 to support his contention with regard to discrimination. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the impugned order of stoppage of eight increments qua the petitioner as well as order passed by the appellate authority. Keeping in view the allegations as well as the outcome of the inquiry and the different roles of the petitioner as well as Kulwinder Singh, there is nothing to show that there is any discrimination in imposition of penalty upon the petitioner. The role of the petitioner and the role of Kulwinder Singh cannot be equated in view of the variation of allegations and accordingly eight increments of the petitioner have been ordered to be stopped, whereas, in case of Kulwinder Singh, four increments have been stopped. It is not a case where petitioner has been discriminated in a malafide manner and Kulwinder Singh was at equal footings. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are of no help as Kulwinder Singh cannot be stated to be similarly situated employee keeping in view their respective roles and allegations. Keeping in view the allegations, no ground is made out to interfere in the impugned order. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. July 26, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE C.W.P. No. 9158 of 2011 (O&M) (3)