DBSAW NO.49/08. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.49/2008. In S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.531/2000. State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Pratap Singh Date of order:- December 11, 2008. PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI NARAYAN ROY HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. S.S. Sharma, Government Counsel for the State. Mr. Shantanu Bansal on behalf of Mr. Anil Upman for the respondent. ***** BY THE COURT :- Heard counsel for the parties. 2) By the order impugned, punishment inflicted upon writ petitioner Pratap Singh was modified. It appears that three forest officials namely; Gopal Singh Ranger, Pratap Singh Forester and Prabhu Singh Forest Guard were subjected to departmental proceedings pertaining to illegal export of Gum from the forest area where they failed to discharge their duties and detect such exports. On conclusion of the department proceedings, all the three were found guilty of the charges levelled against them. So far as Pratap Singh writ petitioner is concerned, he was punished by withholding of two annual grade increments DBSAW NO.49/08. 2 with cumulative effect and further for recovery of Rs.1597/- from his salary whereas a lighter and different punishment was imposed upon Gopal Singh Ranger to the extent of withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect whereas Prabhu Singh was let off on mere warning. 3) Learned Single Judge of this Court having been satisfied about the charges levelled against the delinquent, held that in view of the charges levelled against them, they could not have been treated indifferently and accordingly it modified the order of punishment inflicted upon Pratap Singh by reducing punishment into withholding of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect and at the same time struck down the order of recovery. 4) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submitted that owing to the charges of the responsibility of the forest officials, different yardsticks were applied and therefore learned Single Judge of this Court was not justified in treating all the three at par. 5) It is well settled that equals must not be treated unequally. Learned Single Judge of this Court keeping in view the principles of equality and in view of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwar Dayal Vs. State of U.P. : 1971 (3) SCC 924 held that uneven treatment is not at all palatable to the judicial conscience of the court and accordingly modified the order of punishment to the extent indicated above. DBSAW NO.49/08. 3 6) Before us, learned counsel for the appellants could not show different charges levelled against the delinquent officials rather, it appears from the materials on record that the charges levelled against them were one and the same and it was found that there was dereliction of duty on their part. Learned Single Judge in this view of the matter was wholly justified in modifying the punishment order as referred to above. 7) For the reasons aforementioned, therefore, we do not find any merit. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. (NARAYAN ROY), CJ. anil