Punishment quashed for being discriminatory and grossly disproportionate where co-delinquent faced no action for identical charges.

The petitioner, a Forest Guard responsible for guarding Tendupatta leaves at a warehouse in Hanumana, was accused of failing to verify bag counts and tampering with a Panchanama register via overwriting

Following a charge sheet dated 26.07.2001 and a departmental enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved against both the petitioner and his superior, Shri D.K. Nigam

Consequently, the District Forest Officer (Respondent No. 3) passed an order on 30.04.2005 inflicting a major penalty of demotion to the lowest pay level and stoppage of increments for ten years

The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed by the Conservator of Forest (Respondent No. 2) on 18.01.2006

The petitioner challenged these orders via a writ petition, alleging discrimination as no action was taken against the superior officer involved in the same incident

1. Whether the disciplinary and appellate orders were passed with proper application of mind and adhered to the principles of natural justice

2. Whether the punishment imposed was discriminatory and disproportionate given that a similarly situated superior officer faced no action for the same incident

The Court applied the Constitutional principles under Articles 226 and 227 regarding judicial review of administrative actions

It relied on the doctrine of equality and non-discrimination in departmental punishments as established in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd. v. Jitendra Pd. Singh (2001) 10 SCC 530 and State of U.P. v. Rajpal Singh (2002) 3 ATJ 177, which hold that awarding different punishments to employees found guilty of the same incident is discriminatory

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Chain Singh Jaat v. Union of India (2004) 1 MPLJ 493, stating that disciplinary and appellate orders must reflect an independent application of mind and assign specific reasons

The Court observed that the disciplinary authority failed to consider material contradictions in the enquiry report, such as the fact that the Panchanama register was in the possession of the superior officer, Shri D.K. Nigam, when the overwriting allegedly occurred

The Court found that the appellate authority acted in a mechanical manner by failing to independently examine the grounds of appeal or provide reasons for its decision

Most significantly, the Court noted that while the Enquiry Officer found both the petitioner and Shri D.K. Nigam culpable, the petitioner was singled out for "harsh" and "grossly disproportionate" punishment while no action was taken against the superior

This selective punishment was deemed a violation of the principles of justice and parity in departmental proceedings

It quashed the impugned orders dated 30.04.2005 and 18.01.2006

The Court remitted the case back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider and pass a fresh order without being influenced by previous decisions, specifically directing them to keep in mind the lack of action against other involved employees

The petition was allowed with no order as to costs