JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. Petitioner was working as Chief Chemist with Nadehi Co-operative Sugar Factory Ltd., Nadehi, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar. During the checking and inspection of the record, 39 bags of sugar were found missing from the go-down of sugar mill. Petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary inquiry was held against the petitioner. Vide order dated 31.05.2013, petitioner’s suspension order was revoked and petitioner was reinstated to his post, however, penalty of stoppage of one increment for three years as well as entry of censure were imposed by Mr. Surendra Singh Rawat, Administrator, Uttarakhand Cooperative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed statutory appeal/representation and statutory appeal/representation preferred by the petitioner, was disposed of by Mr. Surendra Singh Rawat, Administrator vide order dated 07.08.2013 quashing the penalty of punishment of censure only, however, penalty of stoppage of increment of three years was maintained. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has preferred present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 2. I have heard Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Aditya Kumar Arya, Advocate for the respondents. 3. Clause 8 of paper No. 144 of the paper book demonstrates that being Chief Chemist, petitioner was responsible for the ‘rakh rakhaw’ of sugar in the store. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ‘rakh rakhaw’ as mentioned in Clause 8 of paper No. 144 denotes maintenance only. He further submits that stock register and stock always remain under the control of Store Incharge. Petitioner, as Chief Chemist, had no role to play in the movement of sugar in or out the Store managed by Store Keeper. Mr. Khoob Singh, the then Store Incharge as well as Mr. Akash Mishra who were responsible for the stock and stock register confessed their guilt, therefore, they were directed to deposit Rs. 1,26,666/- towards the cost of 39 bags of sugar and both of them deposited the amount with the Sugar factory as revealed from paper No. 149 of the paper book. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that both of them have been reinstated on deposit of the cost of 39 bags of sugar and no punishment was ever awarded against Mr. Khoob Singh and Akash Mishra, therefore, by awarding the punishment against the petitioner, petitioner has been discriminated. 4. Mr. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contends that both of them have been reinstated on deposit of the cost of 39 bags of sugar and no punishment was ever awarded against Mr. Khoob Singh and Akash Mishra, therefore, by awarding the punishment against the petitioner, petitioner has been discriminated. 4. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, in all fairness, for which he is known at the Bar, submits that it is correct that Khoob Singh and Akash Mishra deposited Rs.1,26,666/- as assessed by he authorities towards the 39 bags of sugar found missing as mentioned in page No. 149 of the paper book. 5. Petitioner being Chief Chemist was responsible for the ‘rakh rakhaw’ (maintenance) of the sugar bags. There seems to be vast difference between maintenance and management. 6. In the humble opinion of this Court, considering the duty of the Chief Chemist, it seems petitioner was responsible to advice the Store Keeper how to keep sugar and sheera intact from chemical reaction and how to maintain the quality while keeping the sugar and sheera in the store. In view of the fact that Store Incharge was responsible for the stock register and stock, therefore, petitioner should not be held guilty for shortage of the sugar in view of the fact that petitioner was not responsible for the movement of the sugar either into the store or outside the store. 7. Not only this, Mr. Surender Singh Rawat, Administrator himself has imposed penalty and again himself has rejected the statutory appeal/ representation. This action of Mr. Surendra Singh Rawat is sufficient to demonstrate ill-will and ulterior motive against the petitioner. 8. This Court is conscious about the settled position of law that in writ petition against the award of penalty, ordinarily this Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment or with the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority. However, there is a caveat to it. If Writ Court finds that findings recorded by the disciplinary authority on the face of it are perverse or illegal or proceedings of disciplinary inquiry 4 stand vitiated, Writ Court must come forward to quash such disciplinary inquiry and result thereof to do complete justice. 9. In view of the observation made hereinbefore and for the reason that Mr. If Writ Court finds that findings recorded by the disciplinary authority on the face of it are perverse or illegal or proceedings of disciplinary inquiry 4 stand vitiated, Writ Court must come forward to quash such disciplinary inquiry and result thereof to do complete justice. 9. In view of the observation made hereinbefore and for the reason that Mr. Surendra Singh Rawat, Administrator himself made inquiry and passed punishment and himself rejected statutory appeal/representation, disciplinary inquiry stands vitiated, therefore, is liable to be quashed. 10. Moreover, since both the persons who were responsible for the stock register, stock and movement of the stock, namely, Khoob Singh and Akash Mishra, have deposited the entire amount as assessed by the authorities and no punishment was awarded against them, award of punishment against the petitioner is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India for the reasons that petitioner has been wrongly discriminated by awarding penalty of stoppage of one increment for three years. 11. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. 12. Both the impugned orders dated 07.08.2013 and 31.05.2013 are hereby quashed. 13. No order as to costs. 14. CLMA No. 14226 of 2013 also stands disposed of.