The doctrine of equality mandates that where multiple employees are involved in the same incident of misconduct, the Disciplinary Authority must maintain parity in punishment, and imposing a significantly harsher penalty on one over another similarly placed co-delinquent is discriminatory and legally unsustainable.

ORAL ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

This OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the following relief:

“for quashing of the order No.7929/VIG/886/2010, dated 30.05.2015 together with order No.18036(825)/Per/Disc, dated 30.05.2016 passed by the 3rd and 2nd respondent respectively as illegal and void and for a consequential direction to the 3rd respondent to restore the pay of the applicant as stood before the imposition of penalty with attendant and consequential benefits and to pass such further or other orders as this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case”.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:

The Applicant is employed as a Millwright- Highly Skilled in the factory of the 3rd Respondent. He was served with a charge sheet dated 25.03.2010 under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, proposing major penalty proceedings in connection with an alleged incident of unlawful assembly near the General Manager’s Office on 05.03.2010. The Applicant denied all the charges. Nevertheless, a departmental inquiry was conducted. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 02.03.2015, holding the Applicant guilty of Charges 1 to 8 out of a total of 10 charges, while Charges 9 and 10 were not proved. Based on the said findings, the Disciplinary Authority (3rd Respondent) imposed the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of one year, with a further direction that the Applicant would not earn increments during the said period, vide order dated 30.05.2015. Aggrieved by the said penalty, the Applicant preferred a statutory appeal before the Appellate Authority (2nd Respondent) on 11.07.2015. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 30.05.2016. Hence, the present Original Application.

3. During the hearing, learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that the factory administration had charge-sheeted 12 employees, including the Applicant, in connection with the incident dated 05.03.2010. It was contended that none of the witnesses examined during the inquiry proceedings specifically attributed any act of misconduct to the Applicant. The witnesses merely deposed that a large number of employees had assembled near the General Manager’s Office, without identifying any individual responsible for the alleged misconduct. Despite the absence of specific evidence, the Inquiry Officer, allegedly with a predetermined mindset, held the Applicant guilty of Charges 1 to 8.

4. It was further submitted that the Disciplinary Authority failed to consider the submissions and objections raised by the Applicant while imposing the penalty. The Applicant contended that all the charges arose out of a single incident dated 05.03.2010, but were deliberately split into multiple allegations to exaggerate the gravity of the misconduct and justify imposition of a major penalty.

5. The learned counsel also argued that there was discriminatory treatment, in as much as co-delinquents who admitted the charges were awarded minor penalties, whereas those who denied the charges, including the Applicant, were subjected to harsher punishment. It was further contended that the disciplinary proceedings were inordinately prolonged from 2010 to 2015 without justification, despite full cooperation from the Applicant, thereby adversely affecting his career progression.

6. Additionally, it was submitted that the Appellate Authority failed to properly consider the grounds raised in the appeal and rejected the same in a mechanical manner. The Appella