The principle of parity in punishment mandates equal treatment for co-delinquents involved in the same misconduct, and failure to consider a response to a show cause notice invalidates disciplinary action.

JUDGMENT :

Abdul Moin, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner since deceased and substituted by the legal heirs, has challenged the order dated 16.09.2000 passed by the respondent No.2, a copy of which is Anenxure-16 to the petition. Further prayer is for payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner.

3. As Sarwar Hussain the petitioner has died, as such, for the sake of convenience, Sarwar Hussain would be referred to as the petitioner.

4. By means of the order dated 16.09.2000, the petitioner since deceased has been dismissed from service.

5. The facts of the case revolve in a narrow compass inasmuch as the petitioner was working as Store Keeper when he was issued charge- sheet dated 20.07.1999, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the petition.

6. The charges leveled in the charge-sheet were that from a savings bank account of the Nigam maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sitapur an amount of Rs.56,000/- was withdrawn vide a Cheque No.482371. The cheque was made out to an unknown person by the name of S.P. Singh although no amount was payable to him. In the preliminary enquiry it emerged that the petitioner had stolen the cheque and thereafter made the signatures of Shri P.K. Garg and Shri Atul Mehrotra and upon the cheque being presented, the aforesaid amount was withdrawn.

7. In support of the charges leveled against the petitioner, the respondents had made preliminary inquiry report, the report of the handwriting expert and the accounts documents of the Unit as the documents to be read against him.

8. A Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his reply on 25.04.2000, a copy of which is Annexure-15 to the petition.

9. The disciplinary authority vide order impugned dated 16.09.2000 upon consideration of the inquiry report has dismissed the petitioner from service and hence the petition.

10. Grounds taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while raising the challenge to the punishment order and the legal grounds on the basis of supplementary affidavit as have been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are (a) that a perusal of the impugned removal order dated 16.09.2000 would indicate that none of the grounds that have been raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice dated 16.02.2000 have been considered while passing the order impugned. (b) disparity in punishment to the persons involved in the entire episode.

11. Elaborating this ground, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the preliminary enquiry report dated 07.11.1998, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, would indicate the connivance of three officers namely Shri P.K. Garg, who was Project Manager and had opened the concerned Bank account which was a savings bank account without approval from the Headquarters; Shri B.B.L. Gupta, who was the Assistant Accountant and was also the in-charge of the cheque book and cheque issue register and had duly been informed by one Shri Mohd Yunus, the Office Assistant regarding Cheque No.482371 i.e. the cheque involved in the entire episode, having gone missing but no endorsement had been made by Shri Gupta in the said register; and Shri Mohd Yunus, who was the Office Assistant and who is said to have informed Shri B.B.L. Gupta about the cheque having gone missing to which it had been observed in the preliminary enquiry report itself that the statements given by Shri B.B.L. Gupta do not appear to be correct and that he has tried to hide his mistakes.

12. The contention is that all the aforesaid three persons were actively involved in the entire episode which had resulted in an amount of Rs.56,000/- being withdrawn.

13. The argument is that obviously, no saving bank account could have been opened for the respondent-Corporation and in case Shri P.K. Garg, the Project Manager opened the sai