ORDER:

Heard Sri J.C.Francis, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K.L.N.Raghavendra, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the order of dismissal dated 30.11.2022, bearing No.S/X/P.227/153/02 /MS/2022, under Divisional Order No.92/2022, including the rejection of the appeal dated 23.03.2023 and the revision dated 09.06.2023, as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner into service.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in connected matter of the colleague of the petitioner, this Court disposed of the Writ Petition by remanding the matters to the respondents for reconsideration in W.P.No.33535 of 2024 dated 17.03.2026 and requested this Court to pass a similar order in this Writ Petition also.

4. On the other hand, learned Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents did not dispute the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner with regard to the disposal of W.P.No.33535 of 2024 dated 17.03.2026 and requested this Court to pass appropriate orders.

5. The relevant portion of the order in P.Satyanarayana vs. Union of India/Government of India and others, Order dated 17.03.2026 in W.P.No.33535 of 2024, reads as under:

“13. It clearly shows that the respondent authorities have taken lenient view in other cases for the same incident alleged to have been involved in custodial death of the deceased accused and the criminal case is pending against the said persons including the petitioner. In spite of that the respondent authorities have dismissed the petitioner from service and the same was confirmed in the appeal and the revision. The said orders passed by the respondents are contrary to the orders of this Court and also the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotives Co.Ltd., vs. Jitendra Pd.Singh¹passed by this Court (Unreported), wherein it was held as under;

“who are facing similar set of charges and proved against them, there cannot be parity of punishments”.

14. In similar circumstances of the case, the order of this Court in Mohd. Ayoob vs. Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad², squarely apply to the instant case. The relevant portion of the said order reads as under;

“In the instant case, the respondents singled out the petitioner by imposing punishment of dismissal and the individuals who faced similar charges that of the petitioner and against whom the charges were proved they were imposed lesser punishments ie., postponement of increments.”

In the instant case also, the respondents have imposed lesser punishment to the other RPF persons, who were involved along with the petitioner in Cr.No.794 of 2021 on the file of Ballarshah Police Station and also faced the same charges in disciplinary proceedings. In view of the same, the said findings of this Court squarely apply to the instant case and the respondents have to re-consider the punishment imposed against the petitioner.”

6. In view of the above circumstances and by following the orders of this Court in W.P.No.33535 of 2024 dated 17.03.2026, this Writ Petition is disposed of by setting aside vide the Office Memorandum No.S/X/P.227/153/02/MS/2022 dated 19.05.2022, the orders of the Appellate vide Authority Force Order No.22/2023 dated 23.03.2023 vide and the orders of the Revisional Authority Force Order No.49/2023 dated 09.06.2023. The matter is remanded back to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner on par with similarly situated persons who faced similar charges and were imposed lesser punishment.

7. The Registry is directed to annex a copy of the Order dated 17.03.2026 in W.P.No.33535 of 2024 along with this order.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed.