1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2058 OF 2010. Chandrakumar @ Chandrakant Yashwant Fulke .vs. State of Mah. & others Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. C.A. Joshi, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. Sunil V. Manohar, Advocate for respondent no.2, CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : JULY 5, 2010. 1] Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 2] The petitioner has challenged the order of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Administrative Appeal No. 1066/02 by which the petitioner’s appeal against the order of the District Judge terminating the temporary services of the petitioner because of suppression of the information that he was prosecuted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code for murder in one case and in two other cases for offences punishable under Section 324 & Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code respectively. The petitioner was 2 duly charge-sheeted for suppressing this vital information and found guilty as charged. 3] Mr. C.A. Joshi, learned Advocate for petitioner, submitted that the services of the petitioner ought not to have been terminated for suppression of information particularly since in another case the learned District Judge had overlooked the similar suppression of information by another employee who had also been prosecuted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 4] We see no merit in this submission. It is not possible to give any advantage to an employee who seeks parity in wrongdoing with another. The petitioner has undisputedly suppressed information which was vital to the petitioner’s employment, particularly as staff of a Court of Law and has been appropriately punished. 5] Mr. Sunil V. Manohar, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2, points out that the other employee one Sane by name had also furnished similar wrong information but in fact was punished though with admonition by the learned 3 District Judge sometime in the year 1998. The learned Counsel submits that even if it appears that the punishment to the said employee may be inadequate, it would not be proper to reopen his case. Having regard to the time which has elapsed, we consider it appropriate to accept the submission on behalf of the respondent no.2. 6] Having regard to the circumstances of this case, we find that there is no error of law or fact in the order of the learned District Judge or in the order of the learned Appellate Authority. 7] With the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Judge Judge J.