JUDGMENT K. K. Trivedi, J.:- This petition was originally filed as O.A. No. 5504/2000 before the M.P. State Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur by an ex-constable of the Police Department. The original application has remained pending before the Tribunal and was transmitted to this Court after closure of Tribunal and it is registered as writ petition. During the pendency of the petition, original petitioner had died and his widow has been substituted as legal representative in the present petition. 2. The original petitioner, who was serving as Constable, was charge-sheeted for alleged misconduct committed in discharge of his duties, jointly along with one more Constable Shankar Singh on the charges that while the aforesaid two constables were assigned duty to take one of the under-trial accused to Sihora on 7-5-1997, they have not taken proper care of custody of the said accused, who while returning from Sihora to Jabalpur after appearance in trial, absconded from the police custody. A report to this effect was lodged immediately. It was alleged that the original petitioner had not taken good care, was not vigilant and that is why the said accused has absconded with the handcuffs. The other charge made against both the Constables was that they have unnecessarily taken said accused to a roadside restaurant for taking food where liquor was consumed by the accused. The additional charge was levelled against the original petitioner that he has consumed the liquor along with the said accused and thereby showed indiscipline. It is the case of the original petitioner that he denied the charges, the enquiry was conducted and enquiry report was given against the original petitioner. When a second show cause notice was issued, the original petitioner demanded a copy of the enquiry report and thereafter submitted his explanation but the same was not properly considered and by order dated 30-4-1998, a penalty of removal from service was imposed on the original petitioner whereas the co-accused was compulsory retired. An appeal was preferred against such an order by the original petitioner but the same having been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, a mercy petition was filed but the same has been dismissed by the Director General of Police, therefore, original application was required to be filed. An appeal was preferred against such an order by the original petitioner but the same having been dismissed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, a mercy petition was filed but the same has been dismissed by the Director General of Police, therefore, original application was required to be filed. It is contended that a criminal case was initiated against the original petitioner under sections 224, 225, 34, Indian Penal Code in the Court of Judicial Magistrate but ultimately he was acquitted in the said case. That being so, the punishment given to the original petitioner is bad in law. It is, thus, contended that in fact the original petitioner should not have been punished in the manner he has been. There is yet another aspect that there cannot be discrimination in the matter of imposition of punishment on the same set of allegations and same set of charges and, therefore, the original petitioner should not have been imposed a penalty of removal from service, specially when co-accused was punished on the same set of charges and evidence with the penalty of compulsory retirement. 3. A return has been filed by the respondents detailing therein that full opportunity of hearing was extended to the original petitioner in the departmental enquiry, the witnesses were examined in his presence, he was granted opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and also to produce witnesses in defence. In view of this, since the enquiry was not conducted in any illegal manner nor any violation of the rules was committed in reaching to the finding, no interference in the penalty was called for. It is further contended in the return that there was ample evidence available that the original petitioner was in drunken state, the medical evidence to this effect was produced and, therefore, if on account of these specific evidence a punishment greater than the punishment imposed on the co-delinquent is imposed on original petitioner, no injustice is caused. The original petitioner was a member of the discipline force and, therefore, the penalty was rightly imposed on him. A rejoinder has been filed by the original petitioner and certain applications have been filed for taking additional documents on record such as order passed in the criminal case. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the original petitioner and certain applications have been filed for taking additional documents on record such as order passed in the criminal case. 4. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. 5. Undisputedly the procedure is prescribed under the M.P. Police Regulations (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations') and it is specifically prescribed that a major penalty if required to be imposed, the procedure laid-down under Regulation 228 is required to be complied with. From the order-sheet appended to the return it is clear that such a procedure was duly observed while imposing punishment on the original petitioner. The note-sheet placed on record as Annexure R-l indicates that the original petitioner was granted not only the required documents but was specifically asked whether he was willing to examine any of his defence witnesses. The original petitioner categorically stated that he was not willing to examine any defence witnesses nor he was willing to state anything. Thus, it cannot be said that the enquiry was conducted in violation of any of the provisions of the rules or instructions contained in the Regulations. Now it is to be examined whether the memorial or petition or appeal filed against the order of penalty is required to be considered in any manner as indicated in the Regulations or not and whether such a procedure was followed while deciding the appeal. If a penalty is imposed, appeal is to be preferred against such an order under Regulation 262. Comments are to be invited, record is required to be seen and then appellate authority is required to decide the appeal. Regulation 273 of the Regulations prescribes that every order passed in appeal shall contain the reason on which it is based. If an order of dismissal is annulled, the officer annulling it shall declare whether the period of enforced absence from duty shall count towards pension or not. Similar is the provision for consideration of mercy petition. A memorial can be made for re-consideration and that memorial treated to be mercy petition is to be decided in like manner as no other procedure is prescribed for deciding the mercy petition. 6. In view of the aforesaid, certain facts are required to be noted. Similar is the provision for consideration of mercy petition. A memorial can be made for re-consideration and that memorial treated to be mercy petition is to be decided in like manner as no other procedure is prescribed for deciding the mercy petition. 6. In view of the aforesaid, certain facts are required to be noted. While the original petitioner was visited with the penalty of removal from service, a co-delinquent employee though was not charge-sheeted for the additional charge of consuming liquor while on duty but who was also found to be in drunken state as was alleged by the prosecution in the criminal case, was compulsory retired from service. The only reason recorded in order of penalty for making such a difference of penalties in between the original petitioner and co-delinquent employee was that his previous service record was of average category and that his reply was found to be partially satisfactory. It was not that the charges as levelled against the original petitioner and the said co-delinquent employees were different, but for the additional charge levelled against the original petitioner, if both the charges were found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer in the same manner against both the delinquent employees, there must be some reasons shown as to what part of reply submitted by co-delinquent employee was satisfactory to the disciplinary authority so that a lesser punishment of compulsory retirement from service was imposed on him. This particular aspect was neither considered by the appellate authority nor by the Director General of Police while deciding the mercy petition of the original petitioner. The reason recorded in the order dated 24-11-1998 (Annexure A-6) for not granting any mercy to the original petitioner was that he has not raised any such ground concretely in his petition whereas the original petitioner when made the appeal categorically contended that in the criminal case, the report was lodged by the co-delinquent employee and there was already a case registered against the co-delinquent employee in the Police Station, Ranjhi for the incidence of absconding one of the accused from the custody of co-delinquent employee in the year 1992. Why these particular aspects were not taken note of, is not clear from the order passed by the appellate authority. 7. Why these particular aspects were not taken note of, is not clear from the order passed by the appellate authority. 7. Yet another aspect is that on the complaint made by the co-delinquent employee the police registered the offence against the original petitioner and the absconded accused Gopal Kuchbandhiya. Both of them were prosecuted before the Court. However, said Gopal had died on 20-5-1999 and trial was proceeded against the original petitioner only. Evidence was produced, the co-delinquent of the original petitioner was examined as complainant, many other employees and the independent witnesses were examined but none have supported the prosecution, as a result the original petitioner was acquitted by the Court after full-dressed trial vide judgment dated 21-7-2012 passed in Criminal Case No. 61/2004. This being so, it will be necessary for the second appellate authority to take into consideration these aspects and to decide the mercy petition of the original petitioner afresh. Now this has become necessary because of the reasons recorded hereinabove as also keeping in view the fact that during the pendency of this petition, original petitioner had died and is substituted by his widow. In case the penalty is modified by the appellate authority, only certain monetary benefits would be available to the widow including the family pension. These special circumstances may also be kept in consideration while re-assessing the matter of imposition of punishment. This particular observation is being made in view of the law laid-down by the Apex Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and another, AIR 1996 SC 484 , wherein the Apex Court has said that the Court itself can invoke the jurisdiction to mould the relief and to impose penalty which according to the Court is more appropriate. However, keeping in view the fact that the order of acquittal of the original petitioner has been passed by the Court only after the order of punishment was issued and that particular fact was never before the Appellate Authority while deciding the appeal of the original petitioner, it would be appropriate to grant them an opportunity to apply their own mind in the facts and circumstances of the case and to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the law laid down by the Apex Court in this respect in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Gold Mines Ltd. and another, AIR 1999 SC 1416 . Further yet another aspect is that the punishment for the Constables is normally an ultimate resort and it should not ordinarily be inflicted until all other means of corrections have failed. The original petitioner could have been granted one more opportunity to remedy the wrong, which was not afforded to him. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, while setting aside the order passed by the appellate authority in mercy petition of the original petitioner as contained in order dated 24-11-1998 (Annexure A-6), the matter is remitted back to the Director General of Police to take into consideration the facts as have been recorded hereinabove and to pass orders on mercy petition of the original petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of the order passed today. The order so passed be communicated to the widow of the original petitioner, who is substituted as petitioner in the present case. 9. The writ petition is disposed of finally. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.