JUDGEMENT 1. The respondent was subjected to departmental proceedings while he was in service on account of certain discrepancies in the Store at the relevant time when he was functioning as the Storekeeper at specified locations. The Enquiry Report exonerated him. Punishment nonetheless followed on 30.6.2003, for recovery of 1,10,626/- questioned in C.W.J.C. 9906 of 2003 which was allowed on 17.12.2003 with liberty to furnish reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Report which were then furnished with fresh show cause duly replied when similar punishment followed questioned in C.W.J.C. 7188 of 2004 allowed on 21.7.2004. Fresh show cause notice followed leading to order of punishment dated 10.12.2004. The appeal against the same was rejected by order dated 15.3.2005 which was then questioned in C.W.J.C. 9570 of 2005* allowed on 24.10.2008, leading to the present appeal. 2. The judgment under appeal notices that the petitioner specifically contended that he was being made a scapegoat in the episode being the smallest of all and that the Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer had not been proceeded against even though it was evident from a perusal of the Enquiry Report that they were equally guilty. 3. He had raised this issue in this memo of appeal also. The writ Court at paragraph-14 of the judgment notices that the respondent/present appellant at no stage addressed itself to the question as to why action had been taken against the petitioner alone and the other authorities. were not proceeded against. 4. Learned counsel for the Board sought to persuade us on other issues in the memo of appeal to assail the impugned judgment. 5. In (2007)7 SCC 206 (Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. and Others vs. Girish Chandra Sarma), the departmental proceeding and the order of punishment was set aside holding that the delinquent was sought to be made a scapegoat when he was not the only one answerable in the collective decision making. Only because he had submitted the preliminary report to distinguish him. Only because he had submitted the preliminary report to distinguish him. In (2008)12 SCC 331 (Man Singh vs. State of Haryana & Ors.), the appellant was held to be entitled to equal treatment in the matter of departmental punishment vis-a-vis the Driver of the vehicle whose punishment was set aside by the appellate authority holding at paragraph 20 as follows: "We may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair-minded authority could ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equals have to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action. The administrative action is to be just on the test of "fair play" and reasonableness." 6. All those who were part of the episode for which delinquent is being faulted with are required to be dealt with even handedly. The petitioners specifically contended from the enquiry report itself that it indicts the Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer also but who had not been proceeded against departmentally. Nonetheless the Board did not choose to proceed against them and refused to even deal with the issue or answer it before this Court. 7. We consider that alone sufficient ground to uphold the judgment under appeal. 8. The Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed.