Complete parity in two sets of cases should result in the same penalty, and a delinquent cannot be punished for any act for which charge was not framed against him.

JUDGMENT :

Heard the parties.

2. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.03.2013 whereby the petitioner has been punished in a departmental proceedings. The Appellate order dated 01.05.2015 bearing Memo No. 248 (Annexure-6) is also under challenge by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner along with nine other delinquents on the similar charge were punished but others were given a lesser punishment than the petitioner. He claims that at least there should have been parity in the quantum of punishment.

4. This is the only ground, the petitioner has taken while challenging the punishment order and the Appellate order.

5. Counsel for the State submits that petitioner without permission and without any information intentionally remained absent in the orderly room on 08.01.2013 when he along with others were called, so the petitioner has been inflicted with a greater punishment than the others.

6. After hearing the parties, I find that the facts are admitted in this case. A departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and nine others. The petitioner was a member of the Railway Protection Force. On 08.01.2013 this petitioner and others were entrusted to escort and safeguard a passengers’ train from Madhupur to Giridih and from Giridih to Madhupur. When the train was returning from Giridih to Madhupur, this petitioner and the others went in the air conditioned compartment and sat there. In the meantime, some miscreants entered another compartment of the train and started looting the passengers and thereafter they fled. When the train reached near Mahesh Munda Station the passenger made a complain to the Station Master of Mahesh Munda and they made hue and cry.

It was then found that this petitioner and his colleagues were sitting in the air conditioned compartment and did not take any steps either to prevent the occurrence or to confront the miscreants. On the aforesaid charge this petitioner and others were subjected to a departmental proceeding. In the departmental proceeding, inquiry officer submitted a report finding the occurrence to be true along with the guilt of the petitioner. Thereafter, receiving the reply to the show-cause notice, the punishment was inflicted upon petitioner and others co-delinquents. So far as this petitioner is concerned, the punishment was of forfeiture of increment of salary for six months with censor. Other delinquents were also punished but with forfeiture of increments of salary for three months.

7. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was also dismissed.

8. The disparity in the quantum of punishment, is the subject matter of this writ application.

9. The fact that the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of stoppage / forfeiture of increment of salary for six months and others were punished with the stoppage of three increments, has not been denied by the respondents. It is the case of the respondents that petitioner was awarded higher punishment just because the petitioner along with others, when were directed to remain present in the orderly room petitioner evaded.

10. The charge against the petitioner and the other delinquents was same. It is for not taking any steps to prevent the dacoity, and for not confronting the dacoits while they were assigned the work to escort the train. It is the allegation that they remained seated in the air condition compartment. The allegation and the charge are same so far as all delinquents including this petitioner. There was no additional charge against the petitioner for not attending the orderly room. Since there was no additional charge of not attending the orderly room, the petitioner could not have been punished with a higher degree of punishment on the ground that the petitioner did not attend the orderly room where he and others were called for. It is also admitted that for the same charge others were inflicted with punishment of stoppage of