B. P. Singh, J.

1. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner was charged of having defalcated a sum of rs.21,000. In his show cause the petitioner admitted his folly and thereby admitted the misconduct. By order dated 18-l-1988/8-9-1989 (Annexure 7-A)the administrator has dismissed the petitioner from service. We find no reason to interfere, because the petitioner has admitted his misconduct and the misconduct so admitted is rather serious and touches upon his integrity.

3. Counsel for the petitioner contended that in similar cases other persons who have similarly defalcated the funds of the Society, have been retained. It is difficult for us to give to Article 14 of the Constitution such a construction at to perpetuate an illegality. If other persons against whom charges of defalcation have been proved have been retained in service, that offends the law, and if brought to our notice, we may have quashed such orders. But, merely because some dishonest people have been retained in the society, other dishonest people cannot claim retention on that ground. If that were to be done, Article 14 of the Constitution would be working in the reverse gear.

4. We, therefore, dis