High Court · 2025

before Cent ral Adm inist rat ive Tribunal by filing Original Applicat ion No. 717 of 2013. Learned Tribunal allowed t he Original Applicat ion by following t he law declared by Apex Court in t he case of St at e of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh, ( 2010) 5 SCC 783 and set aside t he dism issal order wit h libert y t o t he Com pet ent Aut horit y t o im pose sim ilar penalt y, as was im posed upon one Mr. B.D. Naik, who also faced disciplinary enquiry regarding t he sam e incident . Relevant ext ract of t he im pugned j udgm ent rendered 1 by learned Tribunal is reproduced below: - “ 9 . I n t he St at e of U.P. v. Raj pal Singh [ 2010 ( 5) SCC 783] t he Hon’ble Suprem e Court has laid down t hat when t he gravit y of t he charge was sam e in respect of a num ber of Officers, it was not open t o t he Disciplinary Aut horit y t o im pose different punishm ent t o different delinquent s. I n t he inst ant case we have already analyzed and seen t hat t he gravit y of t he charges were m uch m ore serious in respect of Shri B.D. Nayak t han t hat of t he applicant . But in spit e of t hat t he Disciplinary Aut horit y has im posed a m uch higher punishm ent of dism issal t he applicant whereas Shri B.D. Nayak has been im posed a punishm ent of reduct ion of pay t ill 31 st March 1013. from service on 1 0 The law laid down by t he Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of St at e of U.P. v. Raj pal Singh ( supra) has been followed by Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in t he case of C.D. Sharm a v. Union of I ndia [ I LR ( 2013) 4 Del. 2582] . Based upon t he said j udgm ent , Delhi High Court has quashed t he t he penalt y order pet it ioner in t hat case. respect of im posed a m uch 1 1 . I n view of t he above analysis and law on t he subj ect , we find t hat t he penalt y im posed on t he applicant is arbit rary and violat ive of law on t he subj ect as a m uch higher officer having sim ilar charges but t he gravit y of charges being m ore in respect of him has been lesser penalt y of reduct ion in t he t im e scale of pay of 3 years t ill 31 st March 2013. I n view of t he above finding, O.A. is allowed. The order dat ed 19.2.2013 is quashed and set aside. Consequent ly t he applicant shall be fort hwit h w it h all reinst at ed consequent ial benefit s. Aft er t he applicant t he respondent s t o im pose a sim ilar penalt y as t hat of Shri B.D. Nayak or any ot her lesser penalt y keeping in view t he observat ions given above. I n t he circum st ances, t here would be no order as t o cost s.” it will be open in service reinst at ed, t o

2. Union of I ndia has challenged t he j udgm ent rendered by learned Tribunal on 27.04.2016 in t his writ pet it ion. 2

3. I t t ranspires t hat t wo em ployees of Survey of I ndia post ed at Jam m u & Kashm ir Geo- spat ial Dat a Cent re ( J&K GDC) , nam ely respondent no. 2 and one Mr. B.D. Naik were charge- sheet ed on 01.07.2009 for as m any as eight charges. A j oint enquiry was held against bot h of t hem regarding short fall in t he cash lying in t he cash chest of J&K GDC, am ount ing t o Rs. 1,09,887/ - ; bot h of t hem were held guilt y by t he Enquiry Officer; punishm ent of dism issal from service was im posed upon respondent no. 2 while punishm ent of reduct ion t o a lower st age in t he t im e scale of pay by t hree st ages for t he year upt o 30.03.2013 was im posed upon Mr. B.D. Naik, who was serving as Superint ending Surveyor and was also exercising powers of Drawing & Disbursing Officer.

4. Before learned Tribunal it was cont ended by respondent no. 2 t hat as charge against bot h t he em ployees was m ore or less t he sam e, but Mr. B.D. Naik, who was holding a superior posit ion had great er responsibilit y as Drawing & Disbursing Officer and he was also having t he inner key of t he cash chest ; while, respondent no. 2 was having only out er key wit h which t he cash chest could not be opened. I t was furt her cont ended t hat Mr. B.D. Naik was a senior and m ore educat ed / t rained officer; while, respondent no. 2 was m erely a Upper Division Clerk, t herefore, giving lesser punishm ent t o Mr. B.D. Naik and ext rem e punishm ent of dism issal from service upon respondent no. 2, is arbit rary and unj ust . 3

5. Aft er com paring t he art icles of charges, learned Tribunal cam e t o t he conclusion t hat t he charges against Mr. B.D. Naik were alm ost sim ilar t o t he charges levelled against respondent no. 2 and because of his higher posit ion, responsibilit y of Mr. B.D. Naik was m ore, com pared t o respondent no.2. Learned Tribunal by relying upon t he law declared by Apex Court in t he case of St at e of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh, ( 2010) 5 SCC 783, int erfered wit h t he punishm ent of dism issal im posed upon respondent no. 2.

6. I n t he case of St at e of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh ( supra) , Hon’ble Suprem e Court held t hat in case of sim ilar charges in relat ion t o one and t he sam e incident , t o deal wit h t he delinquent s different ly while im posing punishm ent would discrim inat ory. Paragraph nos. 2 t o 6 of t he said j udgm ent are reproduced below: - “ 2 . Adm it t edly, t he respondent was an Assist ant Warder and t he allegat ion against him was four ot her t hat he along wit h Assist ant Warders had beat en one Shivdan Singh, and even t hough t he senior officers dissuaded t hem , t hey never list ened t o t hem . These depart m ent al proceedings and t he disciplinary aut horit y passed t he order of dism issal so far is concerned, t hough in respect of som e ot hers, he passed t he order of st oppage of five increm ent s. t he present respondent allegat ions proved w ere 3 . The respondent assailed t he legalit y t he Public t he order by approaching Services Tribunal. The Tribunal having refused t o int erfere, he approached t he High Court . The High Court cam e t o t he conclusion t hat t he charges and t he delinquency being sam e and ident ical, and all t he em ployees having been served w it h a set of charges out of t he sam e incident , t here w as no j ust ifiable reason t he order of punishm ent , and t herefore, different orders t o 4 dism issal cannot be sust ained. The High Court consequent ly set aside t he order of dism issal and direct ed st oppage of increm ent s in case of t he respondent as w as t he order in case of som e ot her Assist ant Warders. The High Court furt her direct ed t hat t he delinquent respondent w ould be paid only 50% of back wages. I t is t his order of t he High Court w hich is t he subj ect - m at t er of challenge in t his appeal. 4 . I t t he order of int erfere wit h t he High Court is cont ended on behalf of t he appellant s t hat once t he charges have been held t o be est ablished, it w as not appropriat e t he t o quant um of punishm ent and j udged from t his st andpoint , t he High Court cannot be sust ained. I n support of t he said cont ent ion, reliance is placed on t he decision of t his Court in B.C. Chat urvedi v. Union of I ndia [ ( 1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC ( L&S) 80 : ( 1996) 32 ATC 44] and Secy. t o Govt ., Hom e Dept t . v. Srivaikundat han [ ( 1998) 9 SCC 553 : 1998 SCC ( L&S) 1249] . t he t he rat io 5 . Though, on principle aforesaid cases w ould ordinarily apply, but in t he case in hand, t he High Court appears t o have considered t he nat ure of charges levelled against t he five em ployees w ho st ood charged on account of t hat happened on t he sam e day and t hen t he High Court cam e t o t he conclusion t hat since t he gravit y of charges w as t he sam e, it was not open for t he disciplinary aut horit y t o im pose different different delinquent s. The reasoning given by t he High Court cannot be fault ed wit h since t he St at e is not able t o indicat e as t o any difference in t he delinquency of t hese em ployees. punishm ent s incident 6 . I t is undoubt edly open t o deal w it h t he disciplinary aut horit y t he delinquency and once charges are est ablished t o aw ard appropriat e punishm ent . But w hen t he charges are sam e and ident ical in relat ion t o one and t he sam e incident , t hen t o deal w it h t he delinquent s different ly in t he aw ard of punishm ent , w ould be discrim inat ory. I n t his view of t he m at t er, w e see no infirm it y requiring our w it h im pugned order t he int erference under Art icle 136 of Const it ut ion.” t he

7. Learned counsel for t he pet it ioner subm it t ed t hat role of Mr. B.D. Naik and respondent no. 2 was different , as t hey were serving in different capacit y; 5 respondent no. 2 was dealing wit h t he m oney direct ly whereas Mr. B.D. Naik was t he Drawing & Disbursing Officer, t herefore, im posit ion of lesser punishm ent upon Mr. B.D. Naik was j ust ified, as his responsibilit y was lesser. He furt her subm it t ed t hat during enquiry, respondent no. 2 deposit ed a sum of Rs.40,920/ - t owards short fall of cash found in t he cash chest , which am ount s t o adm ission of guilt by him , t herefore, learned Tribunal was not j ust ified in int erfering wit h punishm ent im posed upon respondent no. 2.

8. Per cont ra, Ms. Shakshi Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 subm it s t hat as Drawing & Disbursing Officer, responsibilit y of Mr. B.D. Naik was great er, while respondent no. 2 as Upper Division Clerk was holding a posit ion subservient t o Mr. B.D. Naik, t herefore, punishm ent of dism issal from service im posed upon respondent no. 2 was grossly disproport ionat e t o t he nat ure and gravit y of t he charge. She furt her subm it s t hat Mr. B.D. Naik also deposit ed Rs.62,967/ - t owards short fall of cash found in t he cash chest , t herefore, cont ent ion t hat respondent no. 2 alone adm it t ed his guilt by deposit ing t he am ount , holds no subst ance. She furt her subm it s t hat disciplinary proceedings were init iat ed against bot h t he em ployees in respect of sam e incident , charge- sheet s were also issued t o t hem t he sam e day, t he sanct ion grant ed by Vigilance Depart m ent init iat ing disciplinary proceedings was by a com m on order, t herefore, learned Tribunal was j ust ified in int erfering wit h t he punishm ent in t he light of t he law declared by Apex Court in t he case of St at e of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh 6 ( supra) . She furt her subm it s t hat libert y was grant ed t o t he depart m ent al aut horit ies t o im pose sim ilar punishm ent , as was im posed upon Mr. B.D. Naik, or any ot her lesser punishm ent .

9. Aft er considering all relevant fact s and circum st ances, we do not find any reason t o int erfere wit h t he im pugned j udgm ent . Learned Tribunal aft er det ailed discussion has ret urned a finding t hat charge against bot h t he em ployees was sim ilar. Mr. B.D. Naik by virt ue of his superior posit ion had great er responsibilit y, t herefore, let t ing him off wit h m inor penalt y and im posit ion of ext rem e penalt y of dism issal upon respondent no. 2 was not j ust ified. The law declared by Apex Court in t he case of St at e of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh ( supra) provides t hat when t wo or m ore em ployees are sim ilarly charged in relat ion t o t he sam e incident , t hen t o deal wit h t hem different ly while im posing penalty would be discrim inat ory. The said principle applies t o t he fact s of t he present case wit h full force, t herefore, learned Tribunal was j ust ified in int erfering wit h t he punishm ent im posed upon respondent no. 2.

10. Thus, we do not find any scope int erference. The writ pet it ion fails and is dism issed. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 17.06.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df0 06da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87 5643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 7