Judgment :- The petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 1. 1997, while he was working as Forest Range Officer in Rajapalayam Range of Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, Srivilliputhur. The charges framed against him relate to the period between 17. 1995 to 111. 1996, viz. Charge No.1: That the said Thiru S.Vellaisamy, Forest Range Officer, has worked in Rajapalayam Range of Grizzled Squirrel Wildlife Sanctuary, Srivilliputhur from 17. 1995 forenoon to 111. 1996. During his tenure, a special party headed by Trichi Circle Conservator of Forests, has destroyed illicit Ganja cultivation over an extent of 9.3 acres in prime forest land in 3 locations (i.e.) Mudavankavu, Vellakallatheri and Moongil Pannal area on 110. 1996 and 110. 1996. The age of Ganja plants destroyed ranges from 1 month to 4 months and height of them ranges from two feet to 5½ feet having worth of Rs.13 crores. Charge No.2: That during the above said period and while functioning in the above said Office, the Assistant Conservator of Forests, Forest Protection Squad, Tirunelveli has listed out the felling as detailed below: Fellings 1. Mudavankavu Bit-I 12 Nos. 2. Mudavankavu Bit-II 13 Nos. 3. Vellakkaltheri 34 Nos. 4. Moongilpannaikadu Saragam 38 Nos. "Thus there is dereliction of duty on his part." 2. The petitioner has submitted his explanation on 11. 1998. According to him, the first charge was not specific and it amounted to denial of reasonable opportunity. As far as the second charge is concerned, which relates to the felling of trees on four places, he denied the same on the ground that he was not responsible for the same and only the Protective Staffs viz. Foresters and Forest Guards under whose control the entire forest area lies, were responsible. Moreover, during that time, one of the Forest Guard was murdered and the same had created panic. An enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer found that Charge No.1 framed against the petitioner was proved. However, in respect of Charge No.2, which relates to the felling up of trees in four places, the enquiry officer held that only in respect of one place, viz. Vellakkaltheri, the charge was proved and in respect of other three places, the charges were dropped. 3. The enquiry officer found that Charge No.1 framed against the petitioner was proved. However, in respect of Charge No.2, which relates to the felling up of trees in four places, the enquiry officer held that only in respect of one place, viz. Vellakkaltheri, the charge was proved and in respect of other three places, the charges were dropped. 3. The enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer states that since the cultivation of Ganja involves various activities, taking considerable time of six months, the petitioner, being a Ranger, had not taken any step to avoid the harvesting of the same. It was based on the said report of the Enquiry Officer, the respondent passed the impugned order imposing the punishment of stoppage of increment for a period of three years with cumulative effect. 4. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.494 of 2001 and the same stood transferred to this Court and numbered as W.P.No.36649 of 2005. 1. Mr.S.James, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that identical charges were framed against the Forest Officers, starting from District Forest Officer, Forest Guards and Forest Watcher, in respect of the same incident. It is his contention that even on the same charge in respect of one R.G.S.Natarajan, Deputy Conservator of Forest, who is above the rank of the petitioner, the respondent imposed the punishment of stoppage of next increment for a period of three months with cumulative effect. The petitioner, being the next rank as Ranger, was imposed with a maximum punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect. 4. 2. He would also submit that in respect of one Rajagopal, Forester, under whom the area was in effective control, viz., the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal reduced the punishment to stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect. Likewise, one M.Selvaraj, the next person in the grade, viz. Forest Guard, when approached this Court by filing W.P.No.39801 of 2005 against the identical charges framed against him, this Court, by order dated 14. 2006, quashed the said charges and also set aside the punishment. 4. 3. Likewise, one M.Selvaraj, the next person in the grade, viz. Forest Guard, when approached this Court by filing W.P.No.39801 of 2005 against the identical charges framed against him, this Court, by order dated 14. 2006, quashed the said charges and also set aside the punishment. 4. 3. Again in respect of another person K. Murthy, Forest Guard, against whom also the punishment of stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect was originally passed, the same was subsequently modified as stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect, as per the proceedings of the Principal Chief Conservator of Forests dated 30.6.2004. The said order of the Principal Chief Conservation of Forests was based on the order of Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal dated 112. 2003 made in O.A.Nos.3857 of 2002 and 3891 of 2003. 4. 4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, when the punishment has been either reduced or set aside in respect of other persons who are either above the rank or below the rank of the petitioner, it is inequitable that the petitioner alone suffers the maximum punishment of three increments with cumulative effect. 5. 1. The respondents filed the counter affidavit. While the factual situation about the parties is not denied by the respondent, it is the case of the respondent that the punishment was awarded based on the gravity of the nature of the charges and grade of the persons employed in the Department. 5.2. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondent would submit that while the respondent had passed uniform orders in respect of all the persons, it is they who have approached either the Tribunal or this Court and got reduced the punishments either by the order of the Tribunal or by this Court, and therefore, it is not correct to contend that the respondents have imposed unequal punishment to the Forest Officials. 6. I have heard the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. 7. On the facts and circumstances stated above, it is clear that in respect of the higher Officer, who is placed above the petitioner, viz. Deputy Chief Conservator of Forest, the punishment awarded to him for the same charge is stoppage of three months increment with cumulative effect. 7. On the facts and circumstances stated above, it is clear that in respect of the higher Officer, who is placed above the petitioner, viz. Deputy Chief Conservator of Forest, the punishment awarded to him for the same charge is stoppage of three months increment with cumulative effect. Likewise, in respect of the officers who are placed below that of the petitioner, especially in respect of the Forester M. Selvaraj, it was reduced to stoppage of increment for one year with cumulative effect and in respect of K. Murthy, Forest Guard, the charges were quashed. Similarly, with regard to Forester Rajagopal, the punishment was reduced to stoppage of one year increment with cumulative effect. 8. In view of the above said factual position, even though it can be said that the petitioner being a Ranger is liable for not doing his supervisory work in proper manner, considering the award of punishments imposed, as stated above, there is certainly, as on date, unequal treatment between the forest officials in respect of the same charges. 9. 1. In this regard, a question arises as to whether, on the consideration of fact that an unequal treatment is meted out to the petitioner in respect of quantum of punishment, when compared to the other persons who were charged under the same charge memo, this Court can interfere with the quantum even if the charge has been proved, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. 2. The Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India ( AIR 1996 SC 484 ), has held that if the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court, it would appropriately mould the relief in respect of the penalty, in order to shorten the litigation, even though in normal circumstances, while exercising the power of judicial review, the Court would not substitute its own conclusion on the penalty. Thus, the Apex Court has held as under: "A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court, Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." 3. In State of U.P. & Others v. Raj Pal Singh (JT 2001 (Suppl.1) SC 44), the Apex Court has held that if the delinquent was discriminated, even if the charges are same in respect of awarding punishment, the High Court, while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226, is justified in reducing the penalty, by referring to the judgment of the Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India ( AIR 1996 SC 484 ), cited supra. It has held as follows: "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 5 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 reasonings 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. 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. 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." In view of the ratio laid down in the decisions cited supra, the impugned order of the respondent, imposing punishment of the stoppage of increment for three years with cumulative effect, stands modified to that of the stoppage of increment for a period of one year with cumulative effect. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.