Heard counsel for the parties.

2. In this writ application the petitioner a retired Government servant has assailed his order of punishment dated 18.03.2003 withholding 25 per cent of his pension for a period of ten years on the ground of certain alleged misconduct committed by him during his active service period.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of punishment has submitted that the same has been passed not only on the mere ipse dixit of the higher Authorities but also by choosing to discriminate the petitioner between the same set of persons who were facing identical allegation. In this regard, he has explained that the petitioner was a Section Officer and therefore, the allegation against him that he alone had been responsible for issuance of a transfer order of 46 Medical Officers in disobedience/defiance of the order of the Chief Minister, who had only approved transfer of only one out of 46 Medical Officers was wholly incorrect, inasmuch as, such order of chain transfer of 46 medical officers was issued after approval of all the concerned Authorities up to the level of departmental Secretary. He has also submitted that when no other person except the petitioner has been subjected to departmental inquiry, much less punished in any manner, the order of punishment against the petitioner by holding him only guilty for the alleged misconduct would be wholly unfair and in fact also discriminatory.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State has submitted that it was the petitioner who had created the situation for issuance of an illegal order of transfer of 46 Medical Officers, inasmuch as, he had failed to inform the higher Authorities as with regard to there being no approval of the Chief Minister for transfer of remaining 45 Medical Officers. Learned counsel for the State has also submitted that in any event the charges against the petitioner were found to be proved by the Inquiry Officer and as such, this Court is not required to go into the other aspect as with regard to discrimination in the matter of initiating departmental proceeding and/or inflicting punishment specially when the departmental Minister himself had exonerated the other officers and had found the petitioner alone prima facie guilty, whereafter the petitioner was suspended and subjected to departmental proceeding in which charges were proved against him. He would also explain that the punishment of withholding of 25% pension of the petitioner for a period of ten years in the facts and circumstances of this case can also be not held to be disproportionate keeping in view the seriousness of allegations against him.

5. In the considered opinion of this Court the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as with regard to discrimination is fit to be accepted. From the perusal of the records, it is clear that the petitioner was a Section Officer and the allegation against him on which he was placed under suspension and subjected to a departmental enquiry was that he was party to issuance of an illegal order of transfer of 46 Medical Officers because there was approval of the Chief Minister for transfer of only one of them. Mr. C.K Anil, the Inquiry Officer, in his inquiry report dated 10.10.2001 (Annexure-9) has, however, held the petitioner guilty in isolation by looking into the departmental files and holding that the defence of the petitioner that he had acted as per oral instruction of the Deputy Director was incorrect. Such report of the Inquiry Officer in fact has also been approved by the disciplinary authority whereafter the petitioner has been subjected to punishment of withholding of his 25% of his pension.

6. This Court however on appreciation of materials on record finds the whole approach of the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority to be not only erroneous but in fact perverse. The petitioner was at best a Section Officer and above him were at least three officials in the rank o