A. K. PATNAIK, C. J. ( 1 ) THIS is a case where the disciplinary authority has imposed different punishments on different delinquent employees for almost the same charges. ( 2 ) THE petitioner in W. P. No. 1334/2004 was working as Junior Cashier in the Office of employees State Insurance Corporation at gwalior and the petitioner in W. P. 2319/2004 was working in the same office of the employees State Insurance Corporation as ad hoc Cashier. One Atul Palhekar was working in the same Office of Employees State insurance Corporation as LDC and one chandanlal was working in the same Office of employees State Insurance Corporation as Dy. Manager/manager Grade 2. Some payments were made to unknown fictitious persons on the identification of the two petitioners, Atul palhekar and Chandanlal. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against all the aforesaid four persons for having identified unknown and fictitious persons and for having facilitated perpetration of fraud in respect of such payments made to them causing financial loss to the Corporation. In the enquiry that followed, all the aforesaid four persons were found guilty of the charges, but the disciplinary authority exonerated Chandanlal and imposed different punishments on the three other delinquent employees. On the petitioner of w. P. No. 1334/2004 Vishnu Priyesh Bansal, the penalty of reduction from UDC to LDC in the minimum scale was imposed while on the petitioner of W. P. No. 2319/2004 Bhagwan das Manani, the penalty of reduction to the minimum scale of LDC was imposed. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED, the aforesaid two petitioners filed O. A. Nos. 359/1995 and 563/1995 respectively before the Central administrative Tribunal Bench Jabalpur (for short "the Tribunal" ). The Tribunal found that while lesser punishment had been imposed in other cases such as in the case of Atul Palhekar, greater punishment had been imposed in the case of the two petitioners Bansal and Manani and accordingly by a common order dated august 1, 2002 passed in the two O. As. directed the appellate authority to reconsider and to redetermine the quantum of punishment particularly in view of the award of lesser punishment in other cases cited by the petitioners. directed the appellate authority to reconsider and to redetermine the quantum of punishment particularly in view of the award of lesser punishment in other cases cited by the petitioners. Pursuant to said directions of the tribunal, the appellate authority reconsidered the matter but by order dated October 30, 2002 held that the cases of the two petitioners Bansal and Manani were different from that of Atul palhekar and that difference in the quantum of punishment was therefore justified. The tribunal also held that the cases of the two petitioners who had been found guilty of the charges could not be compared with the case of chandanlal, who had been altogether exonerated of the charges. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED by the said order dated december 30, 2002 of the appellate authority, the two petitioners filed O. A. Nos. 304/2003 and 310/2003 before the Tribunal but by order dated July 14, 2003, the Circuit Bench of the tribunal at Gwalior held that by the impugned order the respondents have considered the representation of the petitioners and after going through the facts the respondents have given the reasons as to why the punishment has been awarded to the two petitioners and why different quantum of punishment had been imposed and that the reasons given by the respondents were justified and did not call for any interference. Aggrieved by the said order dated July 14, 2003 passed by the Tribunal in o. A. Nos. 304/2003 and 310/2004, the petitioners have filed these Writ Petitions under article 227 of the Constitution. ( 5 ) S. C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Sengara Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (1983) 4 SCC 225 : 1984-I-LLJ-161 has held that if the indiscipline of a large number of personnel amongst dismissed personnel could be condoned or overlooked and after withdrawing the criminal cases against them, they could be reinstated, there was no justification in treating the appellants in that case differently without pointing out how they were guilty of more serious misconduct or showing that the degree of indiscipline in their case was higher compared to those who were reinstated. He submitted that in the said case, the Supreme court found that the authorities were unable to explain to the Court the distinguishing features and the Supreme Court took the view that all of them should have been put in the same bracket, otherwise the action of the disciplinary authority amounted to denial of equality and arbitrariness and violative of Article 14 of the constitution. ( 6 ) SHARMA also cited the decision of the madras High Court in the case of Management of Indian Oil Corporation v. Presiding Officer (Madras) and Another, 1993-I-LLJ-1148 (Mad) wherein the Madras High Court relying on the aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sengara Singh and Others v. State of Punjab (supra) has also held that if different workmen are similarly placed with regard to the nature of evidence let in against them by the management in the domestic enquiry and if the workmen are covered by the same set of facts and circumstances, the employer can not single out a particular workman by awarding punishment. ( 7 ) SHARMA next cited the judgment of the allahabad High Court in the case of Basti Ram v. Union of India and Others, 1996 (3) SLR 308 in which a similar view has been taken that if a minor punishment has been imposed, in similar set of circumstances, punishment of dismissal from service, awarded to the petitioner in that case is not commensurate to the charge of misconduct and a case of hostile discrimination has been made out by the petitioner and therefore the order of punishment of dismissal was not sustainable in law. ( 8 ) SHARMA submitted that in the present case the charge against the two petitioners as well as Palhekar and Chandanlal was one and the same : lack of devotion to duty and lack of integrity as revealed from identification of fictitious unknown persons for payment by the corporation, and that the only distinguishing feature was that there was some difference in the quantum of payment made to the fictitious persons, who had been identified by the two petitioners, Atul Palhekar and Chandanlal. He submitted that in the absence of any real distinguishing feature in the charges against the delinquent employees as proved in the enquiry, the appellate authority in its order dated october 30, 2002 could not have come to the conclusion that a lenient punishment in the case of Atul Palhekar and exoneration of Chandanlal and at the same time severe punishment in the case of the two petitioners were justified. ( 9 ) T. C. Singhal, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, relied on the reasonings given by the appellate authority in the order dated October 30, 2002 to show that there were distinguishing features, on account of which, different punishments were imposed on the petitioners and on Atul Palhekar and on account of which Chandanlal was exonerated of the charges. ( 10 ) WE find on a reading of the order dated October 30, 2002 of the appellate authority that the appellate authority has found that in the case of Atul Palhekar the disciplinary authority has observed in the final order of punishment that Atul Palhekar had just put in about 10 months of service in the corporation when he committed the mistake and the mistake was committed not with any mala fide intention and there was no collusion discernible and it was a case of negligence only, but the disciplinary authority found in the case of bansal and Manani that there was lack of integrity on the part of Bansal and Manani and the misconduct therefore was of more serious nature calling for imposition of stringent penalty. Hence, according to the appellate authority, the distinguishing feature between the case of the two petitioners Bansal and manani and Atul Palhekar was that while (sic ). ( 11 ) IN Sengara Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (supra), the State of punjab initiated disciplinary action against the 1,100 members of Police Force for participating in police agitation. Subsequently, the Government reinstated 1000 dismissed members of the police force in their original post, but did not reinstate the remaining members of the police force and the Supreme court held that there was no iota of evidence which would distinguish the case of those who were originally dismissed, but subsequently reinstated in service. Subsequently, the Government reinstated 1000 dismissed members of the police force in their original post, but did not reinstate the remaining members of the police force and the Supreme court held that there was no iota of evidence which would distinguish the case of those who were originally dismissed, but subsequently reinstated in service. The Supreme Court further held that there has been arbitrariness and discrimination on the part of the authorities resulting in violation of denial of equality guaranteed under by Article 14 of the constitution. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the said case of Sengara Singh and Others v. State of Punjab and Others (supra) is quoted hereinbelow: "but approaching the matter from this angle, all the 1,100 dismissed members of the police force were guilty of same extent and degree as the present appellants. Now if the indiscipline of a large number of personnel amongst dismissed personnel could be condoned or overlooked and after withdrawing the criminal cases against them, they could be reinstated, we see no justification in treating the present appellants differently without pointing out how they were guilty of more serious misconduct or the degree of indiscipline in their case was higher than compared to those who were reinstated. Respondents failed to explain to the Court the distinguishing features and, therefore, we are satisfied in putting all of them in same bracket. On that conclusion the treatment meted to the present appellants suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and Article 14 forbids any arbitrary action which would tantamount to denial of equality as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court must accordingly interpose and quash the discriminatory action. On that conclusion the treatment meted to the present appellants suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and Article 14 forbids any arbitrary action which would tantamount to denial of equality as guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court must accordingly interpose and quash the discriminatory action. " ( 12 ) WHEN we examine the orders passed by the disciplinary authority in the case of the two petitioners Bansal and Manani as well as in the case of Atul Palhekar, we find that in all the three cases the disciplinary authority has recorded a finding of lack of integrity, but in the case of Atul Palhekar he has imposed a lesser punishment of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect but in the case of Bansal he has reduced him from the rank of UDC to the rank of LDC in the minimum scale of LDC and in the case of manani he has reduced him in the rank of LDC to the minimum scale of LDC. We fail to see as to how there could be distinguishing feature in the three cases when all three employees have been found to be lacking in integrity. This is thus a case of discriminatory treatment in the matter of punishment and the reasons given in the order dated October 30, 2002 of the appellate authority for differential treatment does not satisfy the test of equality under article 14 of the Constitution. In our considered opinion, the disciplinary authority should reconsider the Quantum of penalty in the case of the two petitioners and take (a) fresh decision on the materials in the records of the disciplinary authority keeping in mind the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of sengara Singh and Others (supra ). ( 13 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, we quash the order dated October 30, 2002 of the appellate authority as well as the order dated july 14, 2003 of the Tribunal in O. A. Nos. 304/2003 and 310/2003 and remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority who will now consider as to what proper punishment should be imposed on the two petitioners keeping in mind the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sengara Singh and Others (supra ). These petitions are allowed to the extent indicated above. .