Punishment must reflect each co-delinquent’s role; identical penalties for materially different misconduct violate Article 14.

The petitioner, an Assistant Sub-Inspector in the Madhya Pradesh Police, was suspended along with two other officials following a newspaper report alleging that Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar Awasthi had illegally checked a vehicle and retained part of an alleged bribe.

The petitioner was charged with assisting the Sub-Inspector, failing to inform superior officers of the incident, and acting contrary to Paragraph 64(4) of the Police Regulations.

Following a departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found all three charges proved against the Sub-Inspector, but against the petitioner found only the allegation of failure to inform superior officers proved; the second charge was not proved.

After issuing a final show-cause notice and considering the petitioner’s reply, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect—the same penalty imposed upon the Sub-Inspector.

The petitioner’s departmental appeal and mercy petition were dismissed.

Judicial review under Article 226 is concerned with the legality and fairness of the decision-making process, compliance with natural justice and statutory rules, and whether findings are supported by evidence; the Court does not ordinarily reappreciate evidence or substitute its view for that of the disciplinary authority.

Where the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Enquiry Officer, it must follow the procedure prescribed under Rule 15(2) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966 and provide the delinquent an effective opportunity to respond.

The doctrine of equality under Article 14 applies to co-delinquents, but parity depends on similarity of roles, charges, responsibility, conduct and other relevant circumstances; materially different misconduct must ordinarily attract proportionate punishment.

A punishment may be reviewed where it is shockingly disproportionate, discriminatory, irrational or otherwise violates the doctrine of proportionality.

The Court found that the Enquiry Officer had attributed the serious misconduct involving bribery to the Sub-Inspector, whereas the petitioner was found responsible only for failing to report the incident.

The Disciplinary Authority nevertheless imposed the same cumulative withholding-of-increment penalty on both employees without adequately explaining its departure from the Enquiry Officer’s findings and without giving the petitioner a proper opportunity to answer the proposed disagreement, contrary to Rule 15(2) and natural justice.

The appellate and revisional authorities also failed to address these material distinctions and the petitioner’s specific grounds, rendering their orders non-speaking.

Applying Article 14 and the proportionality principle, the Court held that the petitioner’s lesser role could not be treated on par with the co-delinquent’s more serious proved misconduct.

The punishment order dated 28 November 2019, the appellate order dated 24 June 2020 and the mercy-petition order dated 4 June 2021 were quashed insofar as they related to the punishment imposed on the petitioner.

The matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh, reasoned and speaking order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and complying with the applicable Rules.

While reconsidering the penalty, the Authority was directed to account for the petitioner’s lesser role and the fact that only failure to report was proved against him; any punishment imposed was required to be lesser than that imposed on co-delinquent Sub-Inspector Kripa Shankar Awasthi.

The fresh order was directed to be passed within two months of receipt of the certified order.