JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. This writ petition has been filed for the following relief:

“For quashing the Resolution issued under Memo No.2641 dated 04.05.2013 (Annexure – 7) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been imposed a punishment of demotion to the lowest post of his scale and has been deprived from getting any salary during the period of suspension; and for issuance of a direction upon the respondents to pay the retiral benefits including the amount towards GPF, Pension, Gratuity, commutation of Pension and other Pensionary benefits as well as consequential benefits under the Modified Assured Career Progression Scheme with interest @ 18% per annum and within a specified period.”

Arguments of the Petitioner

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is confining his argument on the point of punishment.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that altogether six persons faced departmental proceedings in connection with identical charges which is apparent from the charge sheet as well as inquiry report brought on record by the petitioner by way of filing supplementary affidavit dated 06.03.2019 read with Annexure – 2 to the writ petition. The learned counsel submits that not only the allegations are identical, but the findings of the inquiry report are also identical.

5. He further submits that the petitioner was In-charge Executive Engineer at the relevant point of time and as per the reply filed by the petitioner before the authorities, he was posted for the relevant work for the period from 31.01.2008 to 30.07.2008. Learned counsel further submits that the allegation is in connection with the quality of work done in the matter of construction of bridge and it has been alleged that the piling of the pillars was not properly done till the level it was required to be done.

6. Learned counsel submits that Bhola Ram, who was also an Executive Engineer and faced the departmental proceedings in connection with the same work for the same charges, has been punished by withholding three annual increments with non-cumulative effect; withholding promotion for five years with an observation that the punishment and also the payment in connection with the period of suspension will be subject to the result of the criminal case. Learned counsel submits that so far as criminal case is concerned, final form was submitted which has been brought on record by way of reply to the counter-affidavit, but he has no idea as to whether the final form was ultimately accepted by the court concerned or not.

7. Learned counsel submits that so far as the petitioner is concerned, he has also been punished but with different punishment order i.e., demotion to the lowest pay of his pay scale and further with a rider that he will not be entitled to any amount for the period of suspension and matter relating to period of suspension will be subject to the result of the criminal case.

8. Learned counsel submits that two identically placed persons i.e., Bhola Ram and the petitioner have been given different punishments for identical charges and therefore, the impugned order of punishment as against the petitioner is fit to be set aside. He further submits that demotion of the petitioner to the lowest pay scale is much more severe than the punishment imposed upon Bhola Ram, in as much as, the punishment to the petitioner will have a permanent impact on the post retiral benefits of the petitioner as post retiral benefits are based on last pay drawn. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of T.R. Sharma Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2010 3 JLJR 567 and also judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others; 2014 4 JLJR 112 (SC) (Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Vs. Triveni Sharan Mishra) to submit that there has to be parity in the