Limited scope for interference in punishment orders and the distinct nature of criminal and disciplinary proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard Sri S.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avdhesh Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. The petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 31.03.1999 and the appellate order dated 30.06.1999 upholding the order of termination.

3. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Peon with the opposite parties in the year 1980 and was subsequently promoted on the post of Clerk/Cashier in the year 1987. On 02.06.1996, the petitioner was placed under suspension and first information report was lodged against the petitioner and the Branch Manger, Sri C.J. Nagar stating that they were withdrawing money from some accounts fraudulently by way of forged signatures of the customers. The said first information report was registered as Case Crime No.408 of 1996 in which final report was submitted on 28.12.1997 and was thereafter accepted by the Court which became final. In the meantime, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.12.1996 bearing six charges against the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his reply. Similarly, another charge sheet dated 14.12.1996 was served upon Sri Nagar. Separate enquiries were conducted against Sri Nagar and the petitioner which culminated in finding both the said employees guilty of the charges levelled against them. In the case of the petitioner, by means of the punishment order, the services were terminated while in the case of Sri Nagar, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed without any adverse effect on his service benefits. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the order of termination as well as the appellate order on the ground of discrimination. Lacuna in the enquiry proceedings have also been challenged by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, challenge to the enquiry proceedings would be a futility in view of the fact that the petitioner cannot now be reinstated in service and, therefore, he is restricting his challenge to the punishment awarded to the petitioner on the ground of discrimination with the punishment awarded to Sri Nagar, who was charge-sheeted along with petitioner with regard to the same incident.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the charge-sheets against the petitioner as well as Sri Nagar indicates that both the persons were charge-sheeted with regard to the same events and has also drawn attention to the impugned punishment order in which the disciplinary authority has recorded a finding that there is no distinguishing feature between the cases of the petitioner and Sri Nagar. As such, he submits that there was no question of awarding different punishments to both the persons. He has further submitted that in fact the petitioner earlier had claimed that his nature of duties were different from those of Sri Nagar and, therefore, the charges also levelled against him were different in nature but once the disciplinary authority himself has negatived the said argument with the specific finding that there is no distinguishing feature between the two cases, then it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to have awarded the same punishment to both the persons.

6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the basis of the counter affidavit, has rebutted the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with the submission that the cases of both the persons were completely different inasmuch as not only the nature of duties but the posts as well as the charges levelled against the petitioner and Sri Nagar were completely different and there was no similarity between the two cases due to which separate punishments were imposed on both the persons. He has also submitted that even the enquiry proceedings conducted against