Judgment The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner dated 211. 1998. The nature of punishment is for reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year with cumulative effect. 2. The delinquency alleged against the petitioner reads as follows: "Gross neglect of duty in having failed to watch illicit activities of Bootleggers to collect and furnish information to the Inspector of Police, Kondalampatti Circle, about the selling of illicit arrack by one Tmt. Nachayee, age 40, w/o late Perumal Nadar of Dasanaickenpatti which resulted in the death of two persons after consuming I.D.Arrack sold by her on 211. 1996." The learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that several persons were proceeded for the same charge and the Grade I Police Constables who were inflicted with the same punishment have filed O.A.Nos. 7654 to 7657 of 1999 and the Tribunal by a common order dated 25. 2004, set aside the order of punishment by holding as follows: "12. It is not the case of the department that these Police Officers and men have been receiving mamool from Nachayee and allowed her to freely sell I.D.Arrack. In fact in cross examination, it has been elicited from 2 Police Officers examined during enquiry that Police have put as many as 7 cases against her during 1995-96. As already stated she was lastly booked by Mallur Police on 19. 1996. All these cases registered against Nachayee Ammal are in respect of violation of Prohibition Act. In all cases she has been charged under 4(1)(A) sale of I.D.Arrack. Therefore it cannot be stated that these applicants have failed to keep watch over the activities of bootlegger Nachayee. There is no evidence let in to show that death was due to consumption of liquor supplied by Nachayee and it has been elicited from the Police Officers in cross-examination that Nachayee has been dealt with on more than one occasion and therefore charge that applicants and other officers and men of Mallur Police Station have failed in their duty in keeping watch over bootlegger Nachayee cannot be sustained. The allegations are not substantiated. Therefore the Enquiry Officer has correctly held that charge is not proved. 13. The D.I.G. Of Police has made general and vague allegations about the lapses allegedly committed by these applicants and other officers of Mallur Police Station. The allegations are not substantiated. Therefore the Enquiry Officer has correctly held that charge is not proved. 13. The D.I.G. Of Police has made general and vague allegations about the lapses allegedly committed by these applicants and other officers of Mallur Police Station. He has not referred to actual evidence made available during the enquiry. Therefore, punishment imposed by DIG Of Police, Vellore is based on no evidence and therefore the punishment is liable to be set aside. 14. In the result all these applications are allowed and the punishment imposed on the applicants are set aside." 3. The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that a person issued with the same charge in the very same incident who was holding the post of Head Constable was also imposed with the same punishment. The said Head Constable who filed W.P.No. 26640 of 2007 and prayed for considering his representation dated 25. 2006 in the light of the Tribunal order above referred and pass orders and pursuant to the direction to consider the representation of the said Head Constable namely Arumugam, the Additional Director General of Police (Law and Order), Chennai-4, by order dated 10. 2007, set aside the punishment by ordering as follows: "5. I have gone through the petition dated 21. 2006 and orders of High Court dated 8. 2007 and connected records carefully. The oral enquiry officer has held the charge not proved. The punishing authority, disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, inflicted a punishment of Reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for one year with cumulative effect. Four co-delinquents, who received similar punishment sought relief from the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, got reprieve and the punishment against them were set aside. Justice and fairness demands that the petitioner also receives the same reprieve although the High Court has not specifically indicated the nature of disposal to be given. Hence, I order that the punishment imposed on him is cancelled." The said facts are not disputed by the learned Additional Government Pleader. 4. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts and having regard to the fact that the petitioner also involved in the very same incident and the punishment having been set aside in so far as the co-delinquents are concerned, the petitioner is also entitled to be treated on par with his co-delinquents in accordance with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is well settled in law that persons involved in the same delinquency shall be treated equally. Hence, the punishment imposed on the petitioner is set aside and the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs.