The principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents must be applied, ensuring that punishment is not disproportionate when all are involved in the same incident.

SUNEET KUMAR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. By the instant petition, petitioner is assailing the order dated 13 August 2009 passed by the fifth respondent, Director General, CRPF, New Delhi, affirming the order passed by the appellate authority/fourth respondent, Inspector General of Police, Central Sector CRPF, Lucknow and the disciplinary authority/third respondent, Deputy Inspector of General, CRPF, Phaphamau, Allahabad, imposing penalty of compulsory retirement.

3. The facts, in brief, is that disciplinary proceeding came to be initiated against the petitioner while working as Inspector (Ministerial) at Allahabad, along with, Hawaldar, Ramesh Singh and Sipahi, P. Manjunath under the Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, read with, the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, framed there under. Charge came to be framed on 8 August 2007 against the petitioner and other personnel, wherein, it was alleged that petitioner was detailed for recruitment duty, as co-opted member in Recruitment Board No. 1, constituted for recruitment of constables; upon raid confidential documents/papers relating to recruitment was seized from their residential quarter. The imputation of misconduct against the petitioner and the other charged personnel was slightly different, assigning specific role of mal practice in the recruitment process to the petitioner and Ramesh Singh.

4. The charge reads thus:

"That the said No. 831530053 Insp (M) A.A. Khan G.C.CRPF, Allahabad. No. 037020341 HC(M) Ramesh Singh, 148 Bn. CRPF while functioning as Insp(M) and HC(M) respectively at GC CRPF Allahabad. committed an act of misconduct in their capacity as members of the Force u/s 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949 in that when they were detailed for recruitment duty as co-opted members in Recruitment Board No. 1 for recruitment of CT/GD-2005 at GC Allahabad, were found in possession of confidential documents/papers relating to Recruitment of CT/GD-2005 at their residential Quarter unauthorizedly. No 913104664 CT/GD P. Manjunath of GC CRPF Allahabad was not detailed in recruitment duty but he was also found in possession of confidential documents/papers relating to Recruitment of CT/GD-2005 at his residential Quarter unauthorizedly. On 3-12-2005 at GC Allahabad when the evaluation of answer sheets of the candidates pertaining to Recruitment Board No. 1 were being evaluated it was found that No. 037020341 HC/M Ramesh Singh of 148 Bn was noting down the marks obtained by the candidates in written examination in a separate sheet which shows that he was trying to help some candidates with ulterior motive/malafide intention."

5. The enquiry officer upon conducting the common enquiry submitted enquiry report dated 15 July 2008, holding that the charge stood proved against all the delinquent employees. The disciplinary authority upon considering the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, passed the impugned order dated 11 September 2008, imposing punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner, whereas, the other delinquent personnel came to be dismissed from service. The order of the disciplinary authority insofar it relates to the petitioner and Ramesh Singh came to be affirmed in appeal and revision, whereas, the revisional authority set aside the punishment of removal imposed on Constable Manjunath for want of evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two fold submission: (i) that Defence Assistant was not provided to the petitioner; (ii) one of the delinquent employee (Constable Manjunath) was exonerated of the same charge and has been reinstated in service by the revisional authority vide order dated 25.12.2009. In short, petitioner claims parity with Manjunath.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on being confronted with the enquiry report, wherein, the enquiry officer noted that though the petitioner desired for a Defence Assistant but did not provide the name of the per