Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ application is directed against the order dated 10.5.2001 as contained in Annexure-12 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from services. 3. It appears that this petitioner and one Shiv Kumar Singh were put under suspension vide order as contained in Annexure-1 dated 27.7.1996 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against them for selling foodgrains in black market from the godown of the Food Corporation of India, Gopalganj and at the same time, a first information report was also lodged for the same incident by the District Manager, Gopalganj against the petitioner. 4. During the period of suspension, headquarters of the petitioner and co- proceedee, Shiv Kumar Singh, were fixed at Gumla and Dumka, respectively, and articles of charges were served upon them. The petitioner filed reply to the articles of charges explaining the charges. During the pendency of the enquiry, the orders of suspension passed against the petitioner and co-proceedee, Shiv Kumar Singh, were revoked with effect from 6.5.1998 and 14.4.1998, respectively, without prejudice to the criminal charges levelled against them and a direction was issued to realise a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month from salary of the petitioner. However, the departmental proceeding was concluded against Shiv Kumar Singh whereas it continued so far as the petitioner is concerned. The petitioner after revocation of his order of suspension was transferred and posted at Gumla on provisional basis and the authorities vide letter no. 75 dated 5.1.2001 as contained in Annexure-8, directed the petitioner to deposit Rs. 3,07,547.42 paise towards the loss/embezzlement of the said amount of the Food Corporation of India. The petitioner replied vide letter no. 75 as contained in Annexure-9 dated 29.1.2001 and requested the Chief of Claim to adjust part of the money deposited by him and to deduct the rest of the amount from his pending salary. 5. In the meantime, a show cause and the enquiry report were served upon the petitioner vide Annexure-10 series which were replied by the petitioner vide Annexure- 11 and ultimately, he was dismissed from services finding him guilty for the charges levelled against him vide order as contained in Annexure-12. 6. Mr. 5. In the meantime, a show cause and the enquiry report were served upon the petitioner vide Annexure-10 series which were replied by the petitioner vide Annexure- 11 and ultimately, he was dismissed from services finding him guilty for the charges levelled against him vide order as contained in Annexure-12. 6. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel appearing or behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner and one Shiv Kumar Singh both were proceeded against in the departmental proceeding and pending departmental proceeding they were put under suspension and at the same time, both of them were made accused in the first information report for misappropriation of the Government properties. The orders of suspension passed against the petitioner and co-proceedee Shiv Kumar Singh were subsequently revoked and the departmental proceeding against Shiv Kumar Singh was concluded without prejudice to the criminal case as the authorities decided to realise a sum of Rs. 1,14,114/- from Shiv Kumar Singh whereas departmental proceeding against the petitioner continued even though there was a direction to recover a sum of Rs. 2500/- per month from his salary so that the amount of Rs. 1,14,114/- is recovered. Learned counsel further submitted that from the enquiry report, it would appear that the petitioner and Shiv Kumar Singh both were facing the similar charges and both were made accused in the criminal case whereas no enquiry was held so far as Shiv Kumar Singh is concerned, and the authorities concluded the departmental proceeding against him and issued only a direction to recover a sum of Rs. 1,14,114/- from him and thus, the case of the petitioner was discriminated. Learned counsel further submitted that two equals must be treated equally and since they were treated unequally, the action of the authorities is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Learned counsel also tried to assail the order of dismissal on the ground that during the whole of the period of suspension, subsistence allowance was not paid to the petitioner and for non-payment of subsistence allowance, the entire proceeding and the order of departmental proceeding vitiated in view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another [(1999)3 Supreme Court Cases 679] and in the case of Jagdamba Prasad Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others [(2000)7 Supreme Court Cases 90]. 7. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another [(1999)3 Supreme Court Cases 679] and in the case of Jagdamba Prasad Shukla vs. State of U.P. and others [(2000)7 Supreme Court Cases 90]. 7. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents- Bihar State Food and Civil Supplies Corporation Limited stating therein, inter alia, that the petitioner having come to know about his involvement in illegal and unauthorised lifting of foodgrains from the depot of Food Corporation of India, and also having come to know about filing of the first information report against him, he absconded and remained absent from duty in unauthorised manner from 3.8.1996 to 19.3.1998 including the period spent in jail. In the meantime, he was transferred to Gumla but the petitioner did not join the transferred post and ultimately, a notice was published in the daily newspaper "Aaj" dated 29.1.1998 directing him to join his duty and ultimately, he joined at Gumla on 20th March, 1998 and thereafter, his Suspension was revoked on 6.5.1998. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the case of the petitioner is distinguishable from the case of Shiv Kumar Singh. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents with reference to the statements made in the counter affidavit submitted that the departmental proceeding and the order of dismissal would not vitiate for non-payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 9. So far as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that for non-payment of subsistence allowance, the whole proceeding would vitiate, is concerned, I do not find much force in it. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the explanations given in the counter affidavit that the petitioner absconded and remained absent for whole of the period of suspension and never reported at the Headquarter and only when the notice was published in the newspaper, he reported in the Headquarter and immediately thereafter his order of suspension was revoked, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (supra) and in the case of Jagdamba Prasad Shukla vs. State of U. P. and others (supra), in that view of the matter, would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (supra) and in the case of Jagdamba Prasad Shukla vs. State of U. P. and others (supra), in that view of the matter, would not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. From the materials on record and pleadings of the parties, it appears that the petitioner and Shiv Kumar Singh both were facing like charges and accordingly, both were proceeded against in the departmental proceeding and were made accused in the criminal case for lifting of foodgrains unauthorisedly from the godown of the Food Corporation of India. It further appears that both of them were put under suspension and the orders of suspension were revoked by the authorities whereas departmental proceeding was concluded against Shiv Kumar Singh with a direction to realise a sum of Rs. 1,14.114/- from him whereas the departmental proceeding continued against the petitioner which culminated into passing of the order of dismissal. From the enquiry report as contained in Annexure- 10, it would appear that the authorities, keeping in view the damages caused to the Corporation, took a liberal view against co-proceedee, Shiv Kumar Singh and only directed him to pay a sum of Rs.1,14,114/-. It is also manifest from the enquiry report that the enquiry officer had suggested for recovery of the rest of the amount from the petitioner amounting to Rs.1,14,114/- as he was also party to misappropriation along with Shiv Kumar Singh and accordingly, expressed his view to conclude the departmental proceeding of the petitioner on the result of the criminal case as it was done in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh. 11. I have already noticed above that a direction was issued by the authorities to realise Rs. 2500/- per month from the salary of the petitioner so that the misappropriated amount is compensated likewise the direction was issued in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh. 11. I have already noticed above that a direction was issued by the authorities to realise Rs. 2500/- per month from the salary of the petitioner so that the misappropriated amount is compensated likewise the direction was issued in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh. The authorities, in the given facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the fact that both the petitioner and Shiv Kumar Singh were facing the criminal case for same self-charges and they were proceeded against in the departmental proceeding for the same charges, could have treated the petitioner in the same fashion as Shiv Kumar Singh was treated and they could have waited for the result of the criminal case as was done in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh. The action of the authorities in concluding the departmental proceeding against Shiv Kumar Singh and proceeding with the same against the petitioner, in my opinion, amounted an act of discrimination as two equals cannot be treated unequally. 12. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, is not in a position to justify the action of the respondent-authorities in concluding the departmental proceeding against co-proceedee Shiv Kumar Singh and punishing this petitioner in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 13. It is an admitted position that the petitioner and co-proceedee, Shiv Kumar Singh, were facing criminal charges and also departmental proceeding. It is also not in dispute that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the departmental proceeding were similar. In view of the admitted position, as referred to above, the action of the authorities must be held to be discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable and on this ground alone, the order of dismissal, in my opinion, is not sustainable. 14. In the result, this application is allowed and the order impugned as contained in Annexure-12 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the authorities concerned for fresh consideration of the matter in accordance with law, in the light of the observations made in the foregoing paragraphs. There will be no order as to cost.