The principle of parity and non-discrimination in the award of punishment was established, leading to the quashing of the termination order and modification of the appellate authority's order.

( 1 ) HEARD Sri K. Ajit Counsel for the petitioners and learned Stanaing Counsel.

( 2 ) COUNTER and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being finally decided.

( 3 ) THE facts of the case as emerge from the pleadings of the parties are petitioner was appointed as Driver in Samaj Kalyan Department, Agra in the year 1982. With regard to an incident of theft of jeep from the office of Additional District Development Officer in the night of 30th november, 1989/1st December, 1989 the petitioner was placed under suspension, A charge sheet dated 11th June, 1990 was issued against the petitioner. In the charge-sheet charge levelled against the petitioner was that on 30th November, 1989/1st December, 1989, petitioner was unauthorisingly sleeping in the office along with the Chowkidar, Brij Rai Verma, Brij Raj Verma at 4 A. M. went to his home after informing the petitioner on which the petitioner said that he would be there. It was alleged that due to carelessness and negligence of duty of the petitioner jeep No. URT 3411 was stolen. With regard to theft of jeep a first information report was lodged in Police Station Shahganj on which final report was submitted by the police that the accused could not be traced out. Petitioner submitted his reply and denied that Chowkidar went to his home at 4 a. m. after informing him. It is to be noted that against the Chowkidar, Brij Raj Verma also the departmental enquiry was initiated. The Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report against both, petitioner and Brij Raj Verma. In the enquiry reported dated 16th December, 1995 it was stated that the petitioner was unauthorisingly staying in the office and when Brij Raj verma went to his residence after informing the petitioner, it was the duty of the petitioner to be on extra vigil in which he failed. The Enquiry Officer held both, Sri Brij Raj Verma and the petitioner, responsible for theft of jeep. A show cause notice was issued to the petition on 17th may, 1996.

( 4 ) WITH regard to Brij Raj Verma, the disciplinary enquiry was completed earlier. By punishment order dated 12th May, 1995 following punishment was awarded on Brij Raj Verma- (

i) 50% of the value of jeep be recovered from Brij Raj Verma from his salary and thereafter from retirement benefits; (ii) during the suspension period, Brij Raj Verma will not receive any other salary except the suspension allowance already received, (iii) censure entry in his character role.

( 5 ) AFTER receiving the show cause notice dated 17th May, 1996, petitioner submitted a reply dated 15th July, 1996. The punishing authority vide his order dated 22nd October, 1996 awarded following punishment on petitioner :-

(i) services of petitioner were terminated with immediate effect, (ii) the petitioner having been found guilty up to the same effect as Brij Raj Verma, Chowkidar, hence recovery of 50% of the value of jeep from the petitioner shall be made as arrears of land revenue.

( 6 ) THE petitioner against the aforesaid punishment order dated 22nd October, 1996 filed Writ petition No. 36657 of 1996 which was finally disposed of on 12th September, 1997 giving liberty to him to prefer an appeal against the impugned order within four months. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Security, U. P. Samaj Kalyan Vibhag. Memo of appeal is annexed as annexure-7 to the writ petition. The appellate authority vide its order dated 22nd May, 1998 partly allowed the appeal of the petitioner. The appellate authority vide, its appellate order set aside the order of punishment authority directing for recovery of 50% of the value of jeep. However, the order of punishing authority terminating the petitioners services was maintained. The appellate authority in paragraphs 6 of the appellate order has stated that petitioner since was also living in the officer along with the Chowkidar, hence he was held responsible like the chowkidar due to which his d