Uttarakhand High Court
7 June vs Central Administrative Tribunal & ... on 17 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:5033-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 341 of 2016
17 June, 2025
Union of India & others. --Petitioners
Versus
Central Administrative Tribunal & another.
--Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. V.K. Kapruwan, Standing Counsel for the Union of India / petitioners.
Ms. Shakshi Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 2.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
Respondent no. 2 was serving as Upper
Division Clerk in Survey of India, who was dismissed
from service vide order dated 19.02.2013. He
challenged the dismissal order before Central
Administrative Tribunal by filing Original Application No.
717 of 2013. Learned Tribunal allowed the Original
Application by following the law declared by Apex Court
in the case of State of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh, (2010) 5
SCC 783 and set aside the dismissal order with liberty
to the Competent Authority to impose similar penalty,
as was imposed upon one Mr. B.D. Naik, who also faced
disciplinary enquiry regarding the same incident.
Relevant extract of the impugned judgment rendered
2025:UHC:5033-DB
by learned Tribunal is reproduced below:-
"9. In the State of U.P. v. Rajpal Singh
[2010 (5) SCC 783] the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has laid down that when the gravity
of the charge was same in respect of a
number of Officers, it was not open to the
Disciplinary Authority to impose different
punishment to different delinquents. In the
instant case we have already analyzed and
seen that the gravity of the charges were
much more serious in respect of Shri B.D.
Nayak than that of the applicant. But in
spite of that the Disciplinary Authority has
imposed a much higher punishment of
dismissal from service on the applicant
whereas Shri B.D. Nayak has been imposed
a punishment of reduction of pay till 31st
March 1013.
10 The law laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v.
Rajpal Singh (supra) has been followed by
Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
C.D. Sharma v. Union of India [ILR (2013)
4 Del. 2582]. Based upon the said
judgment, Delhi High Court has quashed
the penalty order in respect of the
petitioner in that case.
11. In view of the above analysis and
law on the subject, we find that the penalty
imposed on the applicant is arbitrary and
violative of law on the subject as a much
higher officer having similar charges but the
gravity of charges being more in respect of
him has been imposed a much lesser
penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay
of 3 years till 31st March 2013. In view of
the above finding, O.A. is allowed. The
order dated 19.2.2013 is quashed and set
aside. Consequently the applicant shall be
reinstated in service forthwith with all
consequential benefits. After the applicant
is reinstated, it will be open to the
respondents to impose a similar penalty as
that of Shri B.D. Nayak or any other lesser
penalty keeping in view the observations
given above. In the circumstances, there
would be no order as to costs."
2. Union of India has challenged the judgment
rendered by learned Tribunal on 27.04.2016 in this writ
petition.
2025:UHC:5033-DB
3. It transpires that two employees of Survey of
India posted at Jammu & Kashmir Geo-spatial Data
Centre (J&K GDC), namely respondent no. 2 and one
Mr. B.D. Naik were charge-sheeted on 01.07.2009 for
as many as eight charges. A joint enquiry was held
against both of them regarding shortfall in the cash
lying in the cash chest of J&K GDC, amounting to
Rs. 1,09,887/-; both of them were held guilty by the
Enquiry Officer; punishment of dismissal from service
was imposed upon respondent no. 2 while punishment
of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by
three stages for the year upto 30.03.2013 was imposed
upon Mr. B.D. Naik, who was serving as Superintending
Surveyor and was also exercising powers of Drawing &
Disbursing Officer.
4. Before learned Tribunal it was contended by
respondent no. 2 that as charge against both the
employees was more or less the same, but Mr. B.D.
Naik, who was holding a superior position had greater
responsibility as Drawing & Disbursing Officer and he
was also having the inner key of the cash chest; while,
respondent no. 2 was having only outer key with which
the cash chest could not be opened. It was further
contended that Mr. B.D. Naik was a senior and more
educated / trained officer; while, respondent no. 2 was
merely a Upper Division Clerk, therefore, giving lesser
punishment to Mr. B.D. Naik and extreme punishment
of dismissal from service upon respondent no. 2, is
arbitrary and unjust.
2025:UHC:5033-DB
5. After comparing the articles of charges,
learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
charges against Mr. B.D. Naik were almost similar to
the charges levelled against respondent no. 2 and
because of his higher position, responsibility of Mr. B.D.
Naik was more, compared to respondent no.2. Learned
Tribunal by relying upon the law declared by Apex
Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh,
(2010) 5 SCC 783, interfered with the punishment of
dismissal imposed upon respondent no. 2.
6. In the case of State of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh
(supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in case of
similar charges in relation to one and the same
incident, to deal with the delinquents differently while
imposing punishment would be discriminatory.
Paragraph nos. 2 to 6 of the said judgment are
reproduced below:-
"2. Admittedly, the respondent was an
Assistant Warder and the allegation against
him was that he along with four other
Assistant Warders had beaten one Shivdan
Singh, and even though the senior officers
dissuaded them, they never listened to them.
These allegations were proved in
departmental proceedings and the disciplinary
authority passed the order of dismissal so far
as the present respondent is concerned,
though in respect of some others, he passed
the order of stoppage of five increments.
3. The respondent assailed the legality
of the order by approaching the Public
Services Tribunal. The Tribunal having
refused to interfere, he approached the High
Court. The High Court came to the conclusion
that the charges and the delinquency being
same and identical, and all the employees
having been served with a set of charges out
of the same incident, there was no justifiable
reason to pass different orders of
punishment, and therefore, the order of
2025:UHC:5033-DB
dismissal cannot be sustained. The High
Court consequently set aside the order of
dismissal and directed stoppage of five
increments in case of the respondent as was
the order in case of some other Assistant
Warders. The High Court further directed that
the delinquent respondent would be paid only
50% of back wages. It is this order of the
High Court which is the subject-matter of
challenge in this appeal.
4. It is contended on behalf of the
appellants that once the charges have been
held to be established, it was not appropriate
for the High Court to interfere with the
quantum of punishment and judged from this
standpoint, the order of the High Court
cannot be sustained. In support of the said
contention, reliance is placed on the decision
of this Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S)
80 : (1996) 32 ATC 44] and Secy. to Govt.,
Home Deptt. v. Srivaikundathan [(1998) 9
SCC 553 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1249] .
5. Though, on principle the ratio in
aforesaid cases would ordinarily apply, but in
the case in hand, the High Court appears to
have considered the nature of charges
levelled against the five employees who stood
charged on account of the incident that
happened on the same day and then the High
Court came to the conclusion that since the
gravity of charges was the same, it was not
open for the disciplinary authority to impose
different punishments for different
delinquents. The reasoning given by the High
Court cannot be faulted with since the State
is not able to indicate as to any difference in
the delinquency of these employees.
6. It is undoubtedly open for the
disciplinary authority to deal with the
delinquency and once charges are established
to award appropriate punishment. But when
the charges are same and identical in relation
to one and the same incident, then to deal
with the delinquents differently in the award
of punishment, would be discriminatory. In
this view of the matter, we see no infirmity
with the impugned order requiring our
interference under Article 136 of the
Constitution."
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that role of Mr. B.D. Naik and respondent no. 2 was
different, as they were serving in different capacity;
2025:UHC:5033-DB
respondent no. 2 was dealing with the money directly
whereas Mr. B.D. Naik was the Drawing & Disbursing
Officer, therefore, imposition of lesser punishment upon
Mr. B.D. Naik was justified, as his responsibility was
lesser. He further submitted that during enquiry,
respondent no. 2 deposited a sum of Rs.40,920/-
towards shortfall of cash found in the cash chest, which
amounts to admission of guilt by him, therefore,
learned Tribunal was not justified in interfering with
punishment imposed upon respondent no. 2.
8. Per contra, Ms. Shakshi Singh, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no. 2 submits that as
Drawing & Disbursing Officer, responsibility of Mr. B.D.
Naik was greater, while respondent no. 2 as Upper
Division Clerk was holding a position subservient to
Mr. B.D. Naik, therefore, punishment of dismissal from
service imposed upon respondent no. 2 was grossly
disproportionate to the nature and gravity of the
charge. She further submits that Mr. B.D. Naik also
deposited Rs.62,967/- towards shortfall of cash found
in the cash chest, therefore, contention that respondent
no. 2 alone admitted his guilt by depositing the
amount, holds no substance. She further submits that
disciplinary proceedings were initiated against both the
employees in respect of same incident, charge-sheets
were also issued to them the same day, the sanction
granted by Vigilance Department for initiating
disciplinary proceedings was by a common order,
therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in interfering
with the punishment in the light of the law declared by
Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Raj Pal Singh
2025:UHC:5033-DB
(supra). She further submits that liberty was granted to
the departmental authorities to impose similar
punishment, as was imposed upon Mr. B.D. Naik, or any
other lesser punishment.
9. After considering all relevant facts and
circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment. Learned Tribunal after
detailed discussion has returned a finding that charge
against both the employees was similar. Mr. B.D. Naik
by virtue of his superior position had greater
responsibility, therefore, letting him off with minor
penalty and imposition of extreme penalty of dismissal
upon respondent no. 2 was not justified. The law
declared by Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. v.
Raj Pal Singh (supra) provides that when two or more
employees are similarly charged in relation to the same
incident, then to deal with them differently while
imposing penalty would be discriminatory. The said
principle applies to the facts of the present case with
full force, therefore, learned Tribunal was justified in
interfering with the punishment imposed upon
respondent no. 2.
10. Thus, we do not find any scope for
interference. The writ petition fails and is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
17.06.2025
Navin
NAVEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df0
06da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001,
CHANDRA
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87
5643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5,
cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2025.06.30 14:36:24 +05'30'
