Purnendu Singh, J.—Heard Mr. Krishna Chandra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. Sanjay Kumar, learned AC to SC 8 for the State.

2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:—

a. For issuance of an appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/directions in the nature of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the entire connected records pertaining to the Departmental Enquiry and upon being satisfied be pleased to quash the Appellate Order dated 26.12.2022 passed by Additional Chief Secretary Department of Home (Jail), Government of Bihar, Patna as contained in Memo No.-3973 dated 26.12.2022, preferred against the Order of dismissal as contained in Memo No.-5970 dated 27.05.2022 issued by Deputy Secretary-cum-Deputy Director Bihar, Patna having been rejected without appreciating the fact that the petitioner has been dismissed from service in complete disregard to the provisions laid down under Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 and further be pleased to quash the order of dismissal as contained in Memo No.-5970 dated 27.05.2022 issued by Deputy Secretary- cum-Deputy Director, Bihar, Patna having been passed de-hors the Principles Judicially settled by Hon'ble Courts for conducting the departmental enquiry and in consequent of setting aside the order of dismissal, be pleased to direct reinstatement of the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits along with interest from the date of his removal.

b. For any other relief/reliefs which the Hon'ble court may grant in general interest that may be deemed appropriate and necessary in this case including stay of impugned order during the pendency of this application.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner seeks interference of this Court with the appellate order contained in Memo No.3973 dated 26.12.2022 only to the extent that subsequent to the said order, the then Deputy Superintendent of Prison, namely, Sanjay Kumar Gupta, for the similar charges, was awarded minor penalty of censor and withholding of two increments. Learned counsel has relied upon the provision of sub-rule(x) of Rule 799 and sub-rule (vi) of Rule 830 of Bihar Prison Manual, 2012, which are reproduced hereinafter:—

“799(x) Deputy Superintendent (Administration and Security) shall arrange that every prisoner, who is desirous of seeing the Medical Officer or who is ill, or whose state of mind or of body appears to require medical attention, is shown to the Medical Officer without delay and he/she shall record the circumstance on every such prisoner's health card forming part of the History ticket. He/she shall comply with all directions issued by the Medical Officer relating to the treatment of such prisoner, unless they are contrary to any provisions of this Manual or unless he/she has no means or power to carry them out. In every case, he/she shall record on the prisoner's history ticket what action he/she has taken or reasons for not taking any action and refer the matter to the Superintendent.

830(vi) Each warder shall bring to the notice of the senior officers and Medical Officer any sign of sickness, or any prisoner complaining of sickness.”

4. Learned counsel referring to the above provisions submitted that the charges are similar and the petitioner cannot be discriminated. The petitioner seeks parity with the said Deputy Superintendent of Prison in so far as penalty order has been passed against the petitioner and upheld by the appellate authority. Learned counsel further contended that case of the petitioner has not been considered in light of Rules 799 and 830 of Bihar Prison Manual, 2012. Learned counsel has relied upon paragraphs no.9 to 12 of a judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Rajendra Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73. He contended that the action of the disciplinary authority, imposing major penalty in comparison to the Deputy