JUDGMENT :

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.10.2015 passed by the respondent-State by which the punishment was inflicted upon the petitioner by deduction of 100% monthly pension. The petitioner also challenges the communication dated 09.02.2016 by which the respondent-State refused to renew/reconsider the impugned order dated 27.10.2015.

2. It is a case where the petitioner who was serving as Police Sub-Inspector was proceeded departmentally on account of an incident involving escape of under-trial prisoner from the custody. The challenge to the impugned order is two fold, firstly on merits where learned Senior Advocate Mr. G.M.Joshi appearing for the petitioner has contended that there is no evidence of any involvement of the petitioner in the escape of under-trial from the custody as the petitioner was not found part of the escort/japta to the hospital from where he made the escape. Secondly, other police personnel who formed the escort group and were only responsible when the under-trial prisoner was hospitalized were also proceeded, but were inflicted with only punishments like withholding of increment or penalty to the tune of Rs.5,000/- etc. whereas against the petitioner, the effect of order is that of dismissal from service. Therefore, it is argued that the case of the petitioner requires to be reconsider even on the aspect of punishment.

3. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner in support of his argument has taken this Court through the charges against the petitioner and the inquiry report pursuant to the inquiry and submitted that the only connecting factor of the petitioner that the escape of the under-trial prisoner from the hospital is that the petitioner was in contact on mobile with the under-trial prisoner, his friend, treating doctor of under-trial prisoner and the jailer.

3.1 It is submitted that the there are no proceedings initiated against the jailer or the doctors who are also Government servants. Moreover, the petitioner had given proper explanation or the reason for which he was in contact with the doctor and the jailer. It is submitted that such reasons were proper and genuine, the authorities have not taken into consideration. Learned advocate has relied upon the decision of Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Limited vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah,. Reported in (2006) 6 SCC 548 to substantiate his argument that the institution has to maintain parity in punishment and in the present case, the other delinquents of the same incident have not been punished as severally as the petitioner and therefore, on the ground of parity for punishment, at least the case of the petitioner deserves consideration. Learned advocate in this regard has also relied upon the decision in the case of Nareshchandra Bhardwaj vs. Bank of India and others, reported in AIR 2019 SC 2075.

4. Learned Assistant Government Pleader at the outset submitted that the action on the part of the petitioner is of a grave nature where on account of his dereliction of duty, the under-trial prisoner had escaped from his custody. The petitioner was the highest officer responsible for the escort party of the under-trial while he was hospitalized. The authorities while considering the case of the petitioner were able to establish that the petitioner had played role even to the extent of creating a ground to see to it that the under-trial is for some ingenuine reason shifted to the hospital and from there he manages to escape from the custody and therefore, it is the petitioner who had set up the background and engineered the escape. It is submitted that the inquiry has been conducted in due course and by applying the principles of natural justice and following all the procedural laws and it is only thereafter, by taking into consideration the nature of evidence on record that the punishment is inflicted. It is submitted that the case of the petition