The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of equality and the principle of parity among co-delinquents in determining the quantum of punishment.

JUDGMENT :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

Six writ petitions were heard together and decided by a common order dated 7th July 2017.

2. The writ petitioners who are respondent(s) before us in the respective Letters Patent Appeal faced departmental inquiry which was conducted on the basis of a complaint made by Mahesh Kumar to Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribagh. They suffered an order of punishment of dismissal from service by the disciplinary authority and their appeals/memorials were rejected, against which they approached the writ Court.

3. In the order dated 7th July 2017 passed in W.P.(S) No.582 of 2014 and analogous cases, the writ Court recorded stand of the parties in detail but interfered with the order of punishment of dismissal from service only on the ground of parity in punishment.

4. The writ Court has held as under:

“18. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the relevant records, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services of the petitioners in different writ applications warrant interference, due to the reasons stated hereinbelow:

(I) The petitioners having rendered considerable length of service have been inflicted with the order of punishment of dismissal from services, basing on the findings of the enquiry officer. The genesis of the case pertain to lodging of false F.I.R by the petitioners, which was enquired into by the departmental authorities and subsequently in the departmental proceeding the enquiry officer found the petitioners to be prima facie guilty of the charges, though no conclusive findings have been given by the enquiry officer.

(II) One of the ground on which this Court is inclined to interfere in the impugned order of punishment that two of the officials one Inspector Radhey Shyam Das and Constable Nand Bihari Singh, those who have been roped in the same set of allegations, have been let off with lesser punishment, whereas petitioners have been subjected to major punishment of dismissal from services. It would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 (Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P) wherein at paragraph-9, it has been held as under:

“9. The doctrine of equality applied to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.”

(III) Here, It would also be apposite to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372 (Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. Rajendra Singh) wherein at paragraph-17, it has been held as under:

“17. If there is a complete parity in the two sets of cases, imposing different penalties would not be appropriate as inflicting of any/higher penalty in one case would be discriminatory and would amount to infraction of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That is the ratio of Rajendra Yadav case, already taken note above. On the other hand, if there is some difference, different penalty can be meted out and what should be the quantum is to be left to the appellate authority. However, such a penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and cannot be shockingly disproportionate. As per the ratio of Obettee (P) Ltd. case even if the nature of misconduct committed by the two sets of employees is same, the conduct of one set of employees accepting the guilt and pleading for lenient view would justify lesse