CWP (T) No. 2099 of 2008 26.2.2009 Present: Ms. Ranjana Parmar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. Ms. Ranjana Parmar submits that departmental proceedings were initiated against the present petitioner and one Shri Shankar Singh. The Inquiry Officers were appointed. The Inquiry Officers submitted their reports to the Disciplinary Authority. Consequently, vide office order dated 23.1.1992, the Disciplinary Authority had directed recovery of a sum of Rs. 13,623.10 paise i.e. half of the loss amount occurred due to the negligence of Ram Lal Chowkidar. Similar penalty, according to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, was imposed upon Shri Shankar Singh. She further submits that her client has preferred an appeal also against office order dated 23.1.1992. The same stood rejected by the Appellate Authority on 28.10.1992 (Annexure R-1). She then submitted that Shri Shankar Singh also preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had accepted the appeal and the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was set aside. She further submitted that once the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated on the basis of one mis-conduct, her client could not be discriminated against by the employer. In other words, her submission is that if the appeal of Shri Shankar Singh has been accepted, there is no reason why her client should be treated differently. It is strange that the appellate authority had adopted different yard stick for deciding the petitioner’s appeal though the misconduct is common and both the persons were proceeded departmentally. In case Shri Shankar Singh, as submitted by Ms. Ranjana Parmar, has been dealt with leniently by the Appellate Authority, there is no reason why the petitioner should not be dealt with in the same manner. In case the Appellate Authority adopts different yard stick, as in the present case, it will violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, Annexure R-1 dated 28.10.1992 is quashed and set aside. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority is directed to re-hear the appeal at par with the case of Shri Shankar Singh within a period of three weeks from today. In view of the observations made hereinabove, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), J. February 26, 2009. (cr)