Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.— Heard Sri S.K.Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Despite revision of the list, none appears for the opposite parties. Under challenge in the instant writ petition is the order dated 21.06.1995, passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner i.e. Senior Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, U.P. Region, Lucknow whereby a penalty of recovery of 50% of loss of Rs. 41,659.30 in thirty six equal instalments along with reduction by three stages of scale of pay with cumulative effect has been imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 18/22.10.1996, passed by the appellate authority on the appeal preferred by him against the punishment order dated 21.06.1995 whereby by the appeal too has been dismissed. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that on 02.03.1994, the petitioner was served with a memorandum containing two articles of charges coupled with statement of imputation of misconduct/misbehaviour in respect of articles of charges. The said memorandum dated 02.03.1994, as observed above, contained two charges, namely, (i) that the petitioner in collusion with Sri Ram Jas Gupta embezzled FCI cash amounting Rs. 41,659.30 and (ii) that the petitioner did not take vehicle i.e. taxi and guard to carry cash from Bank to FCI office though, PRD personnels were available at depot for the safety and security of cash in transit. The petitioner appears to have submitted his reply denying the allegations. An enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer who submitted his report dated 20.11.1994 which is available on record as Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition. In the said enquiry report, both the charges were found proved against the petitioner. The petitioner was thereafter given a show cause notice along with aforesaid enquiry report dated 20.11.1994 to submit his reply/objection to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and on his submission to the reply of show cause notice, the impugned punishment order dated 21.06.1995 was passed. It appears that since in this case charge No.1 related to embezzlement of amount in connivance with another employee of FCI, namely, Sri Ram Jas Gupta, as such, the departmental proceedings against Sri Ram Jas Gupta were also initiated in whose case also the enquiry report was submitted on 02.03.1994 in which both the charges against him also were found proved. Sri Ram Jas Gupta was also awarded with the following punishment:- "Recovery of 50% of loss of Rs. 41,659.30 in thirty six equal instalments and reduction by three stages in the present scale of pay with cumulative effect. His suspension period is regularized as period spent on duty but he will not get anything over and above the subsistence allowance already paid to him." Perusal of the impugned punishment order dated 21.06.1995 passed in respect of the petitioner also reveals that the punishment order passed in respect of the petitioner carries the same punishment as was inflicted upon Sri Ram Jas Gupta. The punishment order describes the punishment inflicted on the petitioner in the following words:- "Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Regulation 56 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 impose a penalty of recovery of 50% of loss of Rs. 41,659.30 in thirty six equal instalments and reduction by three stages in the present scale of pay with cumulative effect upon said Sri Chhotey Lal." On an appeal preferred by Sri Ram Jas Gupta, the said punishment was modified and punishment of only recovery of 50% of loss of Rs. 41,659.30 in thirty six equal instalments was maintained. The petitioner also filed an appeal against the punishment order, however, appeal of the petitioner was dismissed in its totality and the original punishment order inflicting punishment of recovery as well as reduction by three stages in the scale of pay was maintained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order of punishment and the order dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner are bad basically on two grounds, firstly that the punishment of reduction by three stages in the scale of pay though has been provided under the Service Regulations but Regulations mandate that the period for which an employee has to be brought to the lower stage of pay has to be specified and in absence of any such specification for the period for which the delinquent employee is being brought lower the award of punishment will become bad. Second limb of argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though in the enquiry report submitted in respect of the petitioner as well as in respect of other charged employee, namely, Sri Ram Jas Gupta, the responsibility of embezzlement of the amount has been saddled on both in connivance with each other and the recovery of the amount of loss suffered by the FCI has been ordered to be made in the proportion of 1:1 but the appellate authority has modified the punishment in case of Sri Ram Jas Gupta whereas in case of the petitioner, it has been maintained and thus the action of the appellate authority does not conform to the principle of fairness in action. In support of the first contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of the Court on Regulation 54(v) of Staff Regulations, 1971 wherein, one of the major penalties has been described as under:- "54(v). reduction to a lower stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to whether or not the employee of the Corporation will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future increments of his pay;" Based on a bare reading of the aforesaid provision of Regulation 54(v), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in absence of the time being specified for reduction in the impugned punishment order and also in absence of any stipulation in the impugned punishment order as to whether the petitioner will earn or not the increments of pay during the period of such reduction, the impugned punishment order is liable to be struck down being in a clear violation of Regulation 54(v). As regards the other submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken the Court to the appellate order dated 18/22.10.1996, passed in case of Sri Ram Jas Gupta whereby the initial punishment order was modified. Learned counsel has also pointed out the appellate order passed by the appellate authority in respect of petitioner, whereby the order of punishment originally passed by the disciplinary authority has been maintained. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the documents and material available on record. Learned counsel has also pointed out the appellate order passed by the appellate authority in respect of petitioner, whereby the order of punishment originally passed by the disciplinary authority has been maintained. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the documents and material available on record. Taking up the second argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner first, it is to be seen as to whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate authority has acted with fairness while deciding the appeal of the petitioner whereby he out-rightly dismissed the same and maintained the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority vis-a-vis the order deciding the appeal of other employee involved in the same incident and on whom allegation was that he also connived with the petitioner and embezzled the amount. It is noticeable that in case of Sri Ram Jas Gupta the punishment order passed by the disciplinary authority was modified. Admittedly, the cash went missing while the same was being carried from the Bank by the petitioner as well as Sri Ram Jas Gupta after encashment of the Demand Draft. The finding recorded by the disciplinary authority in his order dated 21.06.1995, which has been annexed as Annexure No. 14 to the writ petition whereby Sri Ram Jas Gupta was punished with the same punishment, is to the effect that charges levelled against Sri Ram Jas Gupta are fully established, meaning thereby, disciplinary authority was of the view that the petitioner as well as Sri Ram Jas Gupta both contributed in equal measure in connivance with each other resulting in embezzlement of the money belonging to FCI. The fact which is worth mentioning is that both, petitioner as well as Sri Ram Jas Gupta, were awarded with a penalty of recovery of the amount lost by the FCI and the amount so lost was to be recovered in equal proportion from both these persons. However, on appeal though the other penalty, namely, reduction by three stages in the scale of pay with cumulative effect was set aside in the case of Sri Ram Jas Gupta but in the case of petitioner it was maintained without modifying the punishment order. The orders passed by the appellate authority in case of the petitioner as well as in case of Sri Ram Jas Gupta are on record. The orders passed by the appellate authority in case of the petitioner as well as in case of Sri Ram Jas Gupta are on record. Both appear to have been passed on 18/22.10.1996. In the order in respect of Sri Ram Jas Gupta at one place it has been observed that no doubt, Sri Chhotey Lal (petitioner herein) is responsible for the safety of the Corporation money but it also implied on Sri Ram Jas Gupta to ensure that Corporation money reached its appropriate place. The appellate authority has, thus, not distinguished the two cases i.e. the case of the petitioner and that of Sri Ram Jas Gupta. However, despite finding no distinction between two cases, appellate authority at one hand has modified the punishment order in respect of Sri Ram Jas Gupta whereby the punishment of bringing down the employee concerned by three stages in the pay scale with cumulative effect was set aside and in case of petitioner original order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority was maintained. Considering the fact that from the record of the disciplinary proceedings conducted in respect of petitioner as well as Sri Ram Jas Gupta, since no distinction appears to be born out, it does not appear proper to punish the petitioner with one penalty and Sri Ram Jas Gupta, the person who was equally held responsible for the embezzlement with the other. As observed above, the material available on record does not indicate any material distinction between charges, role and findings recorded in respect of the petitioner and Sri Ram Jas Gupta. Thus, it would be inappropriate to maintain the original punishment order passed in respect of the petitioner by the disciplinary authority i.e. the order dated 21.06.1995. In view of the forgoing discussions, the writ petition deserves to be partly allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned punishment order dated 21.06.1995 as contained in Annexure No. 11 to the writ petition and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 18/22.10.1996, as contained in Annexure No. 13 to the writ petition are modified to the extent that the punishment of reduction by three stages in the pay-scale with cumulative effect is hereby quashed, however, the punishment of recovery of 50% of the loss of Rs. 41,659.30 is maintained. 41,659.30 is maintained. Further, in view of above, the first argument raised by the learned counsel for petitioner need not be gone into. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the total amount under the order of punishment dated 21.06.1995 has been recovered from the petitioner. If that be so, no recovery needs to be made from the petitioner. As a result of writ petition being partly allowed, pay of the petitioner shall be re-fixed and he shall be entitled to the arrears of the salary in terms of this judgment. The said exercise shall be completed in all respects by the opposite parties within six weeks from the date certified copy of this judgement and order is produced before the authority concerned and the petitioner shall accordingly be paid the arrears thereof within two weeks thereafter. There will be no order as to cost. _____________