V.K. Jain, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.02.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, whereby OA No. 2191/2010 filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts giving rise to the filing of the OA can be summarized as under:-

2. One Mr. Yameen complained to Joint Commissioner of Police that on 28/29.01.2005, he was dispossessed from a plot which he owned and occupied in village Burari and that his complaints to the local police had yielded no result. On an enquiry conducted by DCP, it was found that the complainant was in possession of the aforesaid plot till 28.01.2005. It was also revealed during enquiry that the petitioner Sub-Inspector Rajinder Khatri, who was in-charge of Police Post Burari and Inspector Bir Singh, SHO, Police Station Timar Pur, were prima facie involved in facilitating the dispossession of the complainant from the aforesaid property. Two other police officials, namely, Head Constable Virender Singh and Head Constable Mahabir Singh were also found prima facie guilty in the matter. A departmental enquiry was, therefore, held against four police officials, i.e. the petitioner, Inspector Bir Singh, Head Constable Virender Singh and Head Constable Mahabir Singh. After enquiry, penalty of forfeiture of one year's approved service temporarily entailing proportionate reduction in pay for a period of one year was awarded to the petitioner. Same penalty was awarded to the Head Constables. Inspector Bir Singh was, however, let off after giving warning to him on the ground that he was going to retire from service next year. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

3. The order of punishment was challenged by the petitioner by way of O.A. No. 2191/2010, which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal. Vide order dated 29.11.2011, this Court recorded that the only submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that though the charges against the petitioner and Inspector Bir Singh were identical, lesser punishment was awarded to Inspector Bir Singh. Thus, the challenge of the petitioner to the impugned order is based only on the discrimination alleged to have been mitted out to him in the matter of award of punishment. The Tribunal dealt with this plea in paragraph 15 of its order, which reads as under:-

“15. It is open to the disciplinary authority to award different punishment to persons involved in a given case depending upon their role and extant of their involvement and other mitigating circumstances. There is thus no infirmity in the disciplinary authority taking a lenient view in respect of Inspector Bir Singh in view of his early retirement from service which is not the case of the applicant. The primary responsibility in the case was that the applicant being Incharge of P.P. Burari, Inspector Bir Singh was concerned mere as a supervising officer. The lapse attributed to him is reporting on the complaint that there was no altercation, which did not find support from the D.D. entries. The applicant's position is thus not comparable with that of the Inspector. We do not find any infirmity in the respondents' action in this regard. His plea of discrimination is thus devoid of substance.”

4. It is an admitted position that the petitioner was the in-charge of the Police Post Burari when the complainant Yameen was dispossessed from the plot measuring 850 square yards in Khasra No. 519, Burari Garhi, Delhi, occupied by him in village Burari. Admittedly, the area within the jurisdiction of Police Station Timar Pur was much larger than the area within the jurisdiction of Police Post Burari though it did include the area under the jurisdiction of the Police Post. It can thus be hardly disputed that being in-charge of the Police Post, the petitioner was nearer to the place of incident as compared to Police Station Timar Pur. The Police Post being nearer to the place of incident, the complainant obviously must have first approached th