The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for equal treatment of delinquents in disciplinary proceedings and the adverse impact of delay in concluding disciplinary actions, which could cause serious prejudice to the employees.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorari, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned Punishment Order issued by the first respondent vide Na.Ka.No.8382/15/DPC 2.2 dated 05.08.2015 imposing punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect to the petitioner and to quash the same.)

1. The punishment of stoppage of increment, for a period of three years with cumulative effect, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, is put under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

2. The charge against the petitioner was that he had quoted low estimates for a demolition work of Panchayat Union Buildings and by colluding with the Chairman and Block Development Officer, had caused a loss of Rs.7,00,000/- to the Government. On the basis of these charges, an inquiry was held whereby, the first charge relating to under estimation was held to be proved and the allegation of collusion in the same charge, was held as 'not proved'. Though the petitioner had submitted his further representation on 14.03.2012, the first respondent had passed the impugned order of punishment on 05.08.2015 by imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect.

3. Ms. A.Pramila, learned counsel for the petitioner had, elaborately and meticulously, presented the facts of the case by raising the following grounds:-

(i) The entire inquiry proceedings is vitiated on the ground of discrimination, since the petitioner alone was subjected to an inquiry and while the charges itself indicates collusion by two other Officials with the petitioner, for having caused loss to the Government and who were not subjected to disciplinary action.

(ii) The punishment order of Disciplinary Authority is not only a non-speaking order, but also lacks application of mind, since the Authority had relied upon a portion of the charges relating to collusion, which was held as 'not proved'.

(iii) The delay in considering the petitioner's further representation pursuant to the inquiry report, has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner since he was deprived of being included in the Promotion Panel for the post of Assistant Executive Engineer.

4. Per contra, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents, had placed reliance on the records pertaining to the inquiry and submitted that the incident had occurred in the year 2010 and the charges were also framed in the same year and therefore, there was no delay in initiation of the disciplinary action. Since the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect, was on the basis of proven charges, which are serious in nature, the punishment as such, cannot be said to be disproportionate. By placing reliance on the counter affidavit, the learned Special Government Pleader submitted that since the charge related to collusion was held to be not proved, there is no necessity to initiate Disciplinary Proceedings against the Chairman or the Block Development Officer and therefore, there were no mala-fides.

5. I have given careful consideration on the submissions made by the respective counsels.

6. The entire charge against the petitioner was that, he had colluded with the Chairman and Block Development Officer by quoting low estimates for demolition work and subsequently, auctioned it for the higher price, thereby causing financial loss to the Government. In this charge, the aspect of collusion was held as 'not proved' by the Inquiry Officer. While the overt act implicates three persons including the petitioner herein, the second respondent had chosen to subject the petitioner alone with a disciplinary action.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, such an action, would amount to an act of discrimination and opposed to the Doctrine of Equality. To substantiate her stand, the learned counsel placed reliance o