The court emphasized the principle of parity in punishment, ruling that disproportionate penalties among co-delinquents violate principles of equality and natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Shesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Baleshwar Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 19.07.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ A No.31782 of 2013 (Brij Mohan Saxena vs. State of U.P. & 4 others).

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that appellant-petitioner was initially appointed as Routine Grade Clerk in Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited[UPPCL]. At the relevant point of time, he was working as Cashier in the office of the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, UPPCL. On 25.02.2000 electricity dues of Rs.4,81,499/- were collected from the consumers in special camps organized for that purpose and it was kept in the chest maintained in Khandiya Karyalaya (Divisional Office) in presence of Sri Keshav Dev Pandey, Assistant Engineer (Revenue) and also some other officials. Thereafter, the petitioner and Sri Keshav Dev Pandey, Assistant Engineer went to their homes.

4. On the next date i.e. 26.02.2000 at 10.15 AM, the petitioner came to the office and Sukhram Singh, who was posted as Dafedar, opened the lock of the doors. Shri Keshav Dev Pandey, Assistant Engineer inserted the keys to open the lock of the chest but it did not turn. Sukhram Singh, Dafedar then pulled the handle and opened the lock of the chest, wherein it was found that the money, which was kept in the chest, was missing. A first information report was lodged on 25/26th February, 2000, on a preliminary enquiry conducted by Shri Ashok Kumar, the then Deputy General Manager, Electricity Distribution Division, Mainpuri against three persons i.e. the petitioner, Keshav Deo Pandey, Asstt. Engineer (Revenue) and Sukhram Singh, Dafedar, alleging that they are responsible for negligence on account of which Rs.4,81,499/- was stolen from the cash chest.

5. The appellant-petitioner, Keshav Dev Pandey, Assistant Engineer and Sukhram Singh, Dafedar were placed under suspension with immediate effect on 17.6.2000 under the U.P. State Electricity Board (now U.P. Power Corporation Ltd.) Officers and Employees (Conditions of Service) Regulations, 1975[Regulations, 1975] in contemplation of departmental enquiry against them. Sri R.R. Singh, Executive Engineer (Sambadh) Electricity Distribution Division, Mainpuri was appointed as the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 22.06.2000 and he was directed to submit his inquiry report within 30 days. Subsequently, a chargesheet was issued by the Enquiry Committee on 23.06.2000, alleging that the appellant-petitioner had handed over the keys of the chest to Sukhram Singh while the keys were to be retained with him alongwith the Assistant Engineer (Revenue), and thus, he had violated the relevant rules.

6. The appellant submitted his reply to the charge sheet on 10.07.2000 stating therein that there were two keys of the chest. One key was in the custody of the petitioner and the other key was with Sri Keshav Dev Pandey, Assistant Engineer. The chest could be opened only when both the keys were pressed in it simultaneously. For last 20 years, both the keys were being kept with Sukhram Singh, Dafedar and the said fact was very well known to the Executive Engineer, Assistant Engineer and all the other concerned officers. Meanwhile, the petitioner received a letter dated 19.07.2000, wherein it was communicated that in the matter, the enquiry shall be conducted by the Enquiry Committee at Lucknow and no enquiry shall be made at local level.

7. Again a chargesheet was issued by the Enquiry Committee on 31.07.2000, which was received by the petitioner on 11.8.2000 and he was required to submit his reply by 25.08.2000. The appellant-petitioner submitted his reply alongwith documentary evidence and was allowed an opportunity of hearing wherein his statement was also recorded on 04.03.2002. In his reply, the