The main legal point established is the requirement for administrative actions to be fair and reasonable, in line with the principles of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. I.A. No. 2611 of 2011 has been filed questioning an order dated 13.5.2010 passed subsequently.

3. Having heard counsel for the parties and considering that it appears integrally connected with the original punishment dated 9.4.2010, in order to shorten the litigation between the parties, the Court considers it proper to allow the same. I.A. No. 2611 of 2011 stands allowed.

4. The petitioner at the relevant time a cashier, is aggrieved by the order dated 9.4.2010 passed in exercise of powers under Rule-43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Pension Rules) by the Department of Water Resources directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 55.97 lacs from his gratuity and if full recovery from the same was not possible, the institution of a money suit along with withholding of his entire pension.

5. The subsequent challenge is to the order dated 13.5.2010 directing fresh departmental proceedings against him for having continued in service for approximately five additional years when according to his date of birth as recorded in the service book he should have superannuated earlier as also directing institution of a criminal prosecution against him on that ground.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that a First Information Report has already been lodged. The present discussion shall therefore completely excludes the same and it shall be open for the petitioner to pursue his remedies appropriately with respect to the same.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly acknowledges that there are no allegations of any procedural impropriety in the conduct of the departmental proceedings. But he alleges that the writ application does raise very serious questions with regard to disparity in punishment between those similarly situated. It is contended that the audit objection on basis of which the departmental proceedings were drawn up mentioned other persons also. Paragraph-19 of the writ application specifically avers that the others (five in number) have not been visited with any punishment but rather have been promoted to the higher ranks and some after superannuation are drawing full pension also. Only one Sudhir Kumar, an Executive Engineer, has been dismissed from service.

8. Learned counsel relies upon the charge-sheet dated 10.9.2009 to demonstrate that at least two persons Shri Ram Prasad Ram, Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department at Purnea and Shri Lakshman Ram, Technical Advisor, Irrigation, Manual Division were proceeded departmentally along with him on the same audit objection with common charges. The respondents do not disclose in the counter affidavit what final orders have been passed in their departmental proceedings. Dealing with the statement in paragraph-19 of the writ application the respondents in their counter affidavit state that it requires no comments. The allegation for disparity in punishment by order dated 9.4.2010 therefore remains unanswered.

9. The applicability of Article 14 of the Constitution on the issue of parity in punishment of co-delinquent has been considered by the Supreme Court in Man Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2008) 12 SCC 331 at paragraph-20 as follows:-

“20. We may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equals have to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality i