1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Amichand assailing - (1) Order dated 13.09.2004 of his dismissal from service, (2) Order dated 31.12.2004 by which his appeal was dismissed, and (3) Order dated 16.06.2008 by which his review petition was dismissed.

2. Although writ petition has been preferred on number of grounds but learned counsel for petitioner has confined his arguments only on question of parity with co-delinquent Gokulchand. It is contended that petitioner and Gokulchand were proceeded against disciplinary proceedings in a joint departmental enquiry under Rule 16 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958. Charges against both of them were same that they disappeared from their patrolling duties. Disciplinary authority awarded penalty of dismissal to both of them. Appeals filed by both of them were dismissed and they simultaneously filed review petitions. Reviewing authority, although dismissed review petition filed by petitioner vide Order dated 16.06.2008, but review' petition filed by co-delinquent Gokulchand was partly allowed vide Order dated 22.09.2006 on ground that penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to gravity of charge proved and therefore it was directed that dismissal Order be withdrawn and he may be reinstated in service with intervening period treating dies-non and instead his three grade increments should be withheld with cumulative effect.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner argued that reviewing authority, while deciding review petition of petitioner almost after two years has completely failed to consider Order passed in case of co-delinquent Gokulchand.

4. Learned counsel for respondents opposed writ petition but was not in a position to justify that when charges against both of delinquents were same why a different treatment has been accorded to petitioner.

5. However, instead of directly deciding this matter on that ground, I deem it appropriate to remand this matter to reviewing authority to reconsider petitioner's review petition in view' of Order passed by him in the case of co-delinquent Gokulchand.In result, this writ petition is partly allowed. Impugned Order dated 16.06.2008 passed by reviewing authority is set aside. Matter is remanded back to reviewing authority for deciding it afresh within a period of four months from the date a copy of this Order is produced before him.Petition Partly allowed.

*******