High Court

1. Heard Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed on the post of Marketing Inspector in Good and Civil Supplies Department after participating in a selection process conducted by U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj. The petitioner joined service on 28.02.2015 and is performing her duties as Marketing Inspector.

3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was quite active in raising demands of the employees of Food and Civil Supplies Department and she was also elected as Provincial President of the U.P. Food & Civil Supplies Inspectors/Officers Association (hereinafter referred to as "the Association") and the said Association has also been recognized by the State Government by order dated 02.03.1998. The petitioner in her capacity as the President of the Association had to bring the grievances of the members of the Association before the higher authorities and some times when genuine demands of the workers and collectively of members of the Association were not met, they had also resorted to staging agitation in their own limited manner.

4. In the present case, it seems that due to certain Government Orders, the supply wing of the Food and Civil Supplies Department became superior to the petitioner and which cause was opposed by the petitioner being in the Marketing wing of the Department and consequently raised their grievance before the Government. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when negotiations in this regard did not result in any order in favour of the Association and since despite negotiations, settlement could not be arrived at while on the other hand the rival Supply wing gave notice for agitation and infact started protest on 21.07.2022.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that written notice of demands was submitted by the petitioner wherein it was stated that in case grievance of the Association were not redressed, then they would resort to agitation from 12.07.2022. It is further submitted that demands of the petitioner's Association were met by the State authorities and compromise was reached and hence agitation was called of on 19.07.2022.

6. During the period of agitation, it seems that certain action was taken by the petitioner being President of the Association, due to which departmental proceedings were initiated against her by issuance of charge sheet which was subsequently amended on 10.05.2024 containing six charges. The charges pertain to the petitioner obstructing implementation of door step delivery of essential commodities to the poor people, which was ambitious food delivery programme of the Government. It has been stated that during the period of agitation the door step delivery programme of the Government was adversely effected from 12.07.2022 to 14.07.2022. The petitioner being president of the Association was held responsible for the stoppage of the work of the said scheme and allegations were levelled for misbehaving with superior officers and also involving other employees of the Department as well as other office bearers of the Association in the agitation.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the agitation lead by the petitioner took a serious turn on 18.07.2022 and there are allegations of violation of public order by the members of the association, but the same ended on 19.07.2022 with settlement arrived at between various parties.

8. The petitioner submitted her reply to the charge sheet on 02.01.21024 denying the allegations levelled against her. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report on 20.02.2024. He found that petitioner was guilty of all the eight charges levelled against her. The petitioner was given a copy of the inquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority and the disciplinary proceedings concluded by passing order of punishment dated 10.05.2024, removing the petitioner from service and decision was taken not to pay further amount other then subsistence allowance paid to her during the period of suspension.

9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 10.05.2024, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, contending that other similarly situated office bearers of the Association and employees of the Department namely Preeti Pandey, Lal Bahadur Gupta, Anil Kumar and Vijay Singh who were also subjected to disciplinary proceedings have been inflicted with punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect while one Virendra Singh was further given punishment of censure entry apart from stoppage of three increments. The punishment given tot he petitioner was rather excessive. All the similarly situated persons who had participated in the said agitation alongwith petitioner have been given lesser punishment.

10. Petitioner in the present writ petition has confined his challenge to the order of punishment on sole ground proportionality of punishment, stating that punishment awarded to the petitioner was rather excessive and disproportionate to the allegations levelled against her. Apart from the same it was stated that the petitioner has right to be considered in just and fair manner and considering that similar/identical allegations were levelled against other officials who were alleged committing offence were awarded lesser punishment and accordingly has assailed the order of punishment dated 05.04.2024 as well as the order dated 20.08.2024, whereby her appeal has been rejected.

11. The petitioner in support of her submissions has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2013 (3) SCC 73.

12. Learned Standing on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that petitioner being President of the Association had led the entire agitation and was responsible for the agitation and also for interference in the Government work pertaining to door step delivery scheme which was an ambitious programme of the Government. It is further submitted that due to said agitation there were allegations of misbehaving with senior Government officers and the petitioner being the President of the Association was singled out. He does not dispute the fact that other four office bearers who were proceeded with departmental action including one Preeti Pandey who was Vice President of the Association was given lesser punishment and were inflicted with punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Accordingly, case of petitioner was distinct with remaining persons. Accordingly, punishment of dismissal was served upon the petitioner.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. The petitioner has confined her prayer in the present case only to disproportionality of punishment awarded to her. It is noticed that petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings wherein all the charges levelled against her pertain to agitation which took place while petitioner was President of the Association between 12.07.2022 and 19.07.2022. It has been stated that the petitioner being President of the Association was tasked with responsibility of conveying grievances of the officials, employees and members of the Association to the superior authorities. It is further noticed that in this regard it has been stated that special protection has been granted to such office bearers of the workers unions by the State Government itself. They have been exempted from annual transfer as per transfer policy which is issued by the State Government from time to time. It is also noticed that the State Government itself has recognized various Employees Unions/Associations and hence the basic point for consideration is that "collective bargaining" has been recognized at at all levels. The persons /office bearers of the Associations are tasked with the duty of airing grievance of the members of the Association, which have to be negotiated with the superior authorities. Accordingly, wher ever there were proceedings initiated against any office bearer of the Association, charges have to be looked into slightly differently when what would have been in the case of other Government servants.

15. Undisputedly, in the present case the proceedings initiated against petitioner were due to agitation which was led by the petitioner to negotiate service conditions and it was not personnel grievance which was being raised by the petitioner. It is during the said agitation that certain altercation may have taken place and some "dharna" "pradarshan" may also have been conducted and the petitioner also does not dispute the facts of the present case, but considering the aforesaid facts, only point which falls for consideration is as to whether other similarly situated employees, were also to be treated in the same manner as the petitioner, were inflicted with lesser punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, where as the petitioner has been removed from service.

16. Undisputedly, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is also major penalty and in the fitness of things four other employees were awarded same punishment except to one Anil Kumar who apart from being awarded stoppage of three increments was also given censure entry. This aspect of the matter was also considered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2013 (3) SCC 73, wherein with regard to proportionality of punishment, the Apex Court has observed as under :- "9. The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co- delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.

10. The principle stated above is seen applied in few judgments of this Court. The earliest one is DG of Police v. G. Dasayan, (1998) 2 SCC 407, wherein one Dasayan, a Police Constable, along with two other constables and one Head Constable were charged for the same acts of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority exonerated two other constables, but imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on Dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on Head Constable. This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of the order of dismissal from service on Dasayan, applying the principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents. This Court held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11. I Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah case (supra), the workman was dismissed from service for proved misconduct. However, few other workmen, against whom there were identical allegations, were allowed to avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme. In such circumstances, this Court directed that the workman also be treated on the same footing and be given the benefit of voluntary retirement from service from the month on which the others were given the benefit.

12. We are of the view the principle laid down in the above mentioned judgments also would apply to the facts of the present case. We have already indicated that the action of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment to the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment to the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. Appellant is, therefore, to be re- instated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was re-instated and be given all consequent benefits as was given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs."

17. Accordingly, it is noticed that there is concurrent finding of the Apex Court in the various cases that even in case the person is found guilty, then while proceeding departmentally and inflicting punishment upon the delinquent Government servant, authorities could not loose sight of the doctrine of equality.

18. Accordingly, comparing the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner vis-a-vis to the punishment inflicted upon other similarly situated employees, this Court finds that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is rather excessive and disproportionate to that what has been inflicted to the remaining office bearers and employees of the Association who have participated in the said agitation. This Court has also noticed the fact that in the present case petitioner being the President of the Association had submitted that decision making is collective act which is conducted by the Executive Committee of the Association and all the decisions taken during the said agitation were collective decisions.

19. Considering the entire factual matrix of the present case in their proper perspective this Court is of the considered view that punishment awarded to the petition is disproportionate and excessive and accordingly case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.

20. In the light of discussion made above, present writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. The impugned orders dated 10.05.2024 and 20.08.2024 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law with regard to punishment to be inflicted upon the petitioner. While passing fresh order, the disciplinary authority shall duly take into account the punishment awarded to all other office bearers being Preeti Pandey, Lal Bahadur Gupta, Anil Kumar and Vijay Singh.

21. Let aforesaid exercise be conducted expeditiously, say within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the disciplinary authority. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anuj Kudesia, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was appointed on the post of Marketing Inspector in Good and Civil Supplies Department after participating in a selection process conducted by U.P. Public Service Commission, Prayagraj. The petitioner joined service on 28.02.2015 and is performing her duties as Marketing Inspector.

3. It is next submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was quite active in raising demands of the employees of Food and Civil Supplies Department and she was also elected as Provincial President of the U.P. Food & Civil Supplies Inspectors/Officers Association (hereinafter referred to as "the Association") and the said Association has also been recognized by the State Government by order dated 02.03.1998. The petitioner in her capacity as the President of the Association had to bring the grievances of the members of the Association before the higher authorities and some times when genuine demands of the workers and collectively of members of the Association were not met, they had also resorted to staging agitation in their own limited manner.

4. In the present case, it seems that due to certain Government Orders, the supply wing of the Food and Civil Supplies Department became superior to the petitioner and which cause was opposed by the petitioner being in the Marketing wing of the Department and consequently raised their grievance before the Government. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that when negotiations in this regard did not result in any order in favour of the Association and since despite negotiations, settlement could not be arrived at while on the other hand the rival Supply wing gave notice for agitation and infact started protest on 21.07.2022.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that written notice of demands was submitted by the petitioner wherein it was stated that in case grievance of the Association were not redressed, then they would resort to agitation from 12.07.2022. It is further submitted that demands of the petitioner's Association were met by the State authorities and compromise was reached and hence agitation was called of on 19.07.2022.

6. During the period of agitation, it seems that certain action was taken by the petitioner being President of the Association, due to which departmental proceedings were initiated against her by issuance of charge sheet which was subsequently amended on 10.05.2024 containing six charges. The charges pertain to the petitioner obstructing implementation of door step delivery of essential commodities to the poor people, which was ambitious food delivery programme of the Government. It has been stated that during the period of agitation the door step delivery programme of the Government was adversely effected from 12.07.2022 to 14.07.2022. The petitioner being president of the Association was held responsible for the stoppage of the work of the said scheme and allegations were levelled for misbehaving with superior officers and also involving other employees of the Department as well as other office bearers of the Association in the agitation.

7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the agitation lead by the petitioner took a serious turn on 18.07.2022 and there are allegations of violation of public order by the members of the association, but the same ended on 19.07.2022 with settlement arrived at between various parties.

8. The petitioner submitted her reply to the charge sheet on 02.01.21024 denying the allegations levelled against her. The Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry and submitted his report on 20.02.2024. He found that petitioner was guilty of all the eight charges levelled against her. The petitioner was given a copy of the inquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority and the disciplinary proceedings concluded by passing order of punishment dated 10.05.2024, removing the petitioner from service and decision was taken not to pay further amount other then subsistence allowance paid to her during the period of suspension.

9. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 10.05.2024, preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, contending that other similarly situated office bearers of the Association and employees of the Department namely Preeti Pandey, Lal Bahadur Gupta, Anil Kumar and Vijay Singh who were also subjected to disciplinary proceedings have been inflicted with punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect while one Virendra Singh was further given punishment of censure entry apart from stoppage of three increments. The punishment given tot he petitioner was rather excessive. All the similarly situated persons who had participated in the said agitation alongwith petitioner have been given lesser punishment.

10. Petitioner in the present writ petition has confined his challenge to the order of punishment on sole ground proportionality of punishment, stating that punishment awarded to the petitioner was rather excessive and disproportionate to the allegations levelled against her. Apart from the same it was stated that the petitioner has right to be considered in just and fair manner and considering that similar/identical allegations were levelled against other officials who were alleged committing offence were awarded lesser punishment and accordingly has assailed the order of punishment dated 05.04.2024 as well as the order dated 20.08.2024, whereby her appeal has been rejected.

11. The petitioner in support of her submissions has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2013 (3) SCC 73.

12. Learned Standing on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that petitioner being President of the Association had led the entire agitation and was responsible for the agitation and also for interference in the Government work pertaining to door step delivery scheme which was an ambitious programme of the Government. It is further submitted that due to said agitation there were allegations of misbehaving with senior Government officers and the petitioner being the President of the Association was singled out. He does not dispute the fact that other four office bearers who were proceeded with departmental action including one Preeti Pandey who was Vice President of the Association was given lesser punishment and were inflicted with punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. Accordingly, case of petitioner was distinct with remaining persons. Accordingly, punishment of dismissal was served upon the petitioner.

13. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

14. The petitioner has confined her prayer in the present case only to disproportionality of punishment awarded to her. It is noticed that petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings wherein all the charges levelled against her pertain to agitation which took place while petitioner was President of the Association between 12.07.2022 and 19.07.2022. It has been stated that the petitioner being President of the Association was tasked with responsibility of conveying grievances of the officials, employees and members of the Association to the superior authorities. It is further noticed that in this regard it has been stated that special protection has been granted to such office bearers of the workers unions by the State Government itself. They have been exempted from annual transfer as per transfer policy which is issued by the State Government from time to time. It is also noticed that the State Government itself has recognized various Employees Unions/Associations and hence the basic point for consideration is that "collective bargaining" has been recognized at at all levels. The persons /office bearers of the Associations are tasked with the duty of airing grievance of the members of the Association, which have to be negotiated with the superior authorities. Accordingly, wher ever there were proceedings initiated against any office bearer of the Association, charges have to be looked into slightly differently when what would have been in the case of other Government servants.

15. Undisputedly, in the present case the proceedings initiated against petitioner were due to agitation which was led by the petitioner to negotiate service conditions and it was not personnel grievance which was being raised by the petitioner. It is during the said agitation that certain altercation may have taken place and some "dharna" "pradarshan" may also have been conducted and the petitioner also does not dispute the facts of the present case, but considering the aforesaid facts, only point which falls for consideration is as to whether other similarly situated employees, were also to be treated in the same manner as the petitioner, were inflicted with lesser punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, where as the petitioner has been removed from service.

16. Undisputedly, stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect is also major penalty and in the fitness of things four other employees were awarded same punishment except to one Anil Kumar who apart from being awarded stoppage of three increments was also given censure entry. This aspect of the matter was also considered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, 2013 (3) SCC 73, wherein with regard to proportionality of punishment, the Apex Court has observed as under :- "9. The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co- delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.

10. The principle stated above is seen applied in few judgments of this Court. The earliest one is DG of Police v. G. Dasayan, (1998) 2 SCC 407, wherein one Dasayan, a Police Constable, along with two other constables and one Head Constable were charged for the same acts of misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority exonerated two other constables, but imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on Dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on Head Constable. This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of the order of dismissal from service on Dasayan, applying the principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents. This Court held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11. I Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah case (supra), the workman was dismissed from service for proved misconduct. However, few other workmen, against whom there were identical allegations, were allowed to avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme. In such circumstances, this Court directed that the workman also be treated on the same footing and be given the benefit of voluntary retirement from service from the month on which the others were given the benefit.

12. We are of the view the principle laid down in the above mentioned judgments also would apply to the facts of the present case. We have already indicated that the action of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment to the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment to the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. Appellant is, therefore, to be re- instated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was re-instated and be given all consequent benefits as was given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs."

17. Accordingly, it is noticed that there is concurrent finding of the Apex Court in the various cases that even in case the person is found guilty, then while proceeding departmentally and inflicting punishment upon the delinquent Government servant, authorities could not loose sight of the doctrine of equality.

18. Accordingly, comparing the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner vis-a-vis to the punishment inflicted upon other similarly situated employees, this Court finds that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is rather excessive and disproportionate to that what has been inflicted to the remaining office bearers and employees of the Association who have participated in the said agitation. This Court has also noticed the fact that in the present case petitioner being the President of the Association had submitted that decision making is collective act which is conducted by the Executive Committee of the Association and all the decisions taken during the said agitation were collective decisions.

19. Considering the entire factual matrix of the present case in their proper perspective this Court is of the considered view that punishment awarded to the petition is disproportionate and excessive and accordingly case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out.

20. In the light of discussion made above, present writ petition is allowed with all consequential benefits to the petitioner. The impugned orders dated 10.05.2024 and 20.08.2024 are hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh order in accordance with law with regard to punishment to be inflicted upon the petitioner. While passing fresh order, the disciplinary authority shall duly take into account the punishment awarded to all other office bearers being Preeti Pandey, Lal Bahadur Gupta, Anil Kumar and Vijay Singh.

21. Let aforesaid exercise be conducted expeditiously, say within two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the disciplinary authority. Order Date :- 15.1.2025 A. Verma (Alok Mathur, J.)