IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP(T) No.: 24 of 2010. Decided on: 31.12.2010. _____________________________________________________ D.S. Jaswal. … Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh. … Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the Petitioner : Mr. H.K. Paul, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Deputy Advocate General with Mr. R.P. Singh, Assistant Advocate General. Rajiv Sharma, J. (oral): Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide memorandum dated 20.8.1999 (Annexure-A) under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of withholding of two increments of pay without cumulative effect upon the petitioner vide order dated 22nd September, 2005. He preferred an appeal against the same. The appellate authority vide order dated 26th November, 2005 reduced the penalty of 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. - 2 - withholding of one increment of pay without cumulative effect. The case of the petitioner, in a nutshell, is that a similarly situate person, namely M.L. Sharma was also issued memorandum dated 20th August, 1999. Penalty was also imposed upon him. However, he made a representation to the competent authority against the same. The competent authority vide order dated 21.6.2001 exonerated said Mr. M.L. Sharma of all the charges levelled against him. 2. Mr. H.K. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited the judgment rendered by this Court in Rajinder Kumar Bansal versus State of Himachal Pradesh, CWP(T) No.15613 of 2008, dated 6.4.2010 whereby the similarly situate person, Mr. Rajinder Kumar Bansal has been permitted to make a representation with a direction to decide his case as per order dated 21.6.2001 passed in favour of Mr. M.L. Sharma. 3. The Court is of the considered view that the cases of all the similarly situate persons were required to be considered on the same footing. In case Mr. M.L. Sharma, to whom same or similar charge sheet was issued, has been exonerated, there is no reason why the petitioner should be discriminated against. 4. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others versus Raj Pal Singh, (2010) 5 SCC 783 have held that when charges are similar and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the - 3 - delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory. Their Lordships have held as under: “6. It is undoubtedly open for the disciplinary authority to deal with the delinquency and once charges are established to award appropriate punishment. But when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award punishment, would be discriminatory. In this view of the matter, we see no infirmity with the impugned order requiring our interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.” 5. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, the petition is disposed with a direction to the petitioner to make a representation to the competent authority within a period of four weeks from today. Thereafter, the competent authority shall decide the case of the petitioner at par with Mr. M.L Sharma, within a period of ten weeks after the production of certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner. The pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Rajiv Sharma), Judge. December 31, 2010. (sck).