IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.582 of 2009 Gopi Nath Jha . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 2. 24.06.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner, who is a Clerk cum Nazir, was subjected to a charge sheet and departmental proceeding initiated. An enquiry report of guilt came to be submitted. This was followed by a second show cause notice duly replied to. The impugned order of dismissal dated 31.7.2006 has followed. The petitioner does not allege any procedural irregularities in the departmental proceeding to make out a case for interference in writ jurisdiction. There is no occasion for the Court to interfere with the impugned order of punishment. Learned Counsel for the petitioner however invites the attention of the Court to the pleadings contained in Para 27 of the writ application. He submits that the Head Clerk on whose direction payment was released by the petitioner has been punished by withholding half of his pension only. It is further submitted that certain others on whose directions and instructions the petitioner had also acted have not been subjected to any departmental action at all. The crux of the submissions made by the Counsel is that Article 14 of the Constitution shall also apply on the question of punishment. The petitioner cannot be discriminated by a more severe punishment than those who are similarly situated and against whom allegations are common, if not more serious. 2 Reliance is placed on a preliminary report of the District Magistrate dated 2.12.2002 in this regard which also names others as prima facie guilty and recommends action against them also. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner is unexceptionable . The Supreme Court in (2008) 12 SCC 331 (Man Singh Vs State of Haryana) observed as follows:- “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 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.” It appears that this issue that the petitioner had acted on the direction of his superior had been raised by him in his reply to the second show cause notice as also in the memo of appeal. The impugned order of punishment and the appellate order both do not deal with this defence of his and make a short shrift of the matter by only reaffirming his liability. Since the only issue raised has been of discrimination in punishment, no useful purpose shall be served at this stage by calling for a counter affidavit. Equally, there is no need at present to interfere with the impugned order of dismissal or the appellate order on that ground. 3 If the petitioner is so advised and represents before the Disciplinary Authority limited to the question of quantum of punishment on the allegation of discrimination with supporting materials, the Court requires the Disciplinary Authority to grant a personal hearing to the petitioner and then pass a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt and or presentation of such application along with a copy of the present order. If the Disciplinary Authority is otherwise satisfied, his source of power being derived from the order of the Court, the appellate order shall not be impediment in his passing a reasoned order, The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)