JUDGMENT 1. - Having unsuccessfully challenged the penalty of withholding of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect as disciplinary measure in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6087/2005, the writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21.11.2013 rendered therein, is in appeal seeking redress. 2. We have heard Ms.Gayatri Rathore, learned for the appellant/writ petitioner and Mr.N.M.Lodha, Senior Advocate & Advocate General, Rajasthan assisted by Mr.Sheetanshu Sharma, for the respondents. 3. The facts, in brief, are that at the relevant time, the petitioner was serving as Head Constable under the respondents and posted in the year 1996 at Police Line, Jaipur. On 18.1.1996, he was sent to Central Jail, Jaipur to produce the under trial prisoners before the court. Incharge of the troop, Shri Suraj Bhan, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and one Ramesh Chand, Head Constable and two other constables, Jagdish and Govindram were also members of the party. In all, 69 under trial prisoners were produced in different courts, after being taken thereto in a Government bus. At around 5:00 p.m. on that date, all the prisoners were again lodged in the bus and brought back to the Central Jail, Jaipur, where on head count, one was found short and an FIR was lodged on 18.1.1996 by Shri Suraj Bhan in his official capacity disclosing that the prisoners had been handed over to two constables, Shri Jagdish and Govindram, and that, on return, one was found missing. According to the appellant/writ petitioner, on completion of the investigation, the police had submitted final report and no action was taken against the aforenamed two constables. 4. Be that as it may, a memorandum of charge was issued against him leveling the following allegations:- " vkjksi ua0 1%& vki Jh lqjsUnz flag gSM dfu0 ua0 2122 o"kZ 1996 esa iqfyl ykbZu t;iqj 'kgj esa rSukr gSA fnukad 18&01&1996 dks vkidh M~;wVh eqyfte is'kh QkStnkjh esa yxk;h tkdj dsanzh; dkjkx`g jokuk fd;k x;k FkkA dsanzh; dkjkx`g ls 69 canh izkIr dj U;k;ky; ifjlj esa ykdj gokykr esa can dj fn, o fofHkUu U;k;ky;ksa esa isf'k;kWa djok;hA le; 5%00 ih0,e0 ij ckn isf'k;kWa eqfYteku dks dkjkx`g dh cl esa fcBkdj dsanzh; dkjkx`g jko.k gq;s! cl esa cSBus ds ckn vkius eqfYteku dks fxudj lgh <+ax ls psd ugha fd;k! cl esa cSBus ds ckn vkius eqfYteku dks fxudj lgh <+ax ls psd ugha fd;k! vifBr viuh M~;wVh dk fuokZg lgh <+ax ls ugha djds M~;wVh ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh cjrh ftlds dkj.k canh dks Qjkj gksus dk ekSdk feyk! vkjksi ua0 2%& ;g fd vki ftEesnkj vf/kdkjh gksus ds ukrs vkius u rks vius v/khuLFkksa ij fu;a=.k j[kk vkSj uk gh cafn;ksa ij fuxjkuh jk[kh! vkidh mDr ykijokgh ds dkj.k canh eqyfte iapw mQZ dkyw vkidh pkykuh xkMZ dh gokykr esa jg x;kA blls og Qjkj gksus esa lQy gqvk! bl lEcU/k esa Fkkuk lnj ij eqdnek ua0 33@96 /kkjk 224 rk0 fg0 esa ntZ gqvk! vkidk mijksDr dk;Z ?kksj nqjkpj.k o M~;wVh ds izfr xQyr dk o mnklhurk dk ifjpk;d gSA " 5. Incidentally, a joint disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant/writ petitioner, Shri Suraj Bhan, Assistant Sub Inspector and Shri Ramesh Chand under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1958, substantially on the same charges. Witnesses on behalf of the disciplinary authority were thereafter examined and on the conclusion thereof, Shri Suraj Bhan was imposed penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect, Ramesh Chand was exonerated and the appellant/writ petitioner was, to reiterate, penalised with stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Being aggrieved, he preferred a departmental appeal before the Deputy Director General of Police, which was dismissed. He then turned to this Court. 6. Ms.Rathore has emphatically argued that having regard to the identicalness of the charges and the evidence of the witnesses of the disciplinary authority, there was no rational basis to exonerate Ramesh Chand and also impose varying penalties. The learned counsel insisted that the evidence on record would demonstrate that no added degree of culpability of the appellant/writ petitioner had been established thereby, so as to justify imposition of penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect, while letting off Ramesh Chand and penalising Suraj Bhan, Assistant Sub Inspector with a lesser penalty of stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The learned counsel has urged that on this count alone, the learned Single Judge ought to have interfered with the impugned decision. No other plea was raised qua the disciplinary proceeding. 7. The learned counsel has urged that on this count alone, the learned Single Judge ought to have interfered with the impugned decision. No other plea was raised qua the disciplinary proceeding. 7. The learned Advocate General, as against this, has urged, with regard to the evidence of the witnesses of the disciplinary authority, that it being apparent on the face of the records that the appellant/writ petitioner had been entrusted with the duty of counting the number of prisoners and ensuring that all, who had been brought from the Central Jail, Jaipur, had been assembled in the bus to carry them back, there was a conscious failure on his part in omitting to do so, and thus, being proved to be guilty of gross misconduct, he had been rightly penalised with stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. The learned Advocate General has further argued that compared to this, as no dereliction of duty qua Ramesh Chand was found to be proved and Suraj Bhan, Assistant Sub Inspector was held to be negligent in exercising his effective superintendence, the former was exonerated and the latter was penalised with stoppage of two annual grade increments with cumulative effect. Mr.Lodha urged that the appellant/writ petitioner, being a member of the disciplined force, the charge being serious and a prisoner having escaped because of his dereliction of duty, the plea of disparity in penalty, on the proved charge against him, is wholly misconceived. 8. We have traversed the pleaded facts and the documents on record. We have also perused the evidence of the witnesses of the disciplinary authority, to the extent necessary and have also examined the order of the disciplinary authority. 9. The foundational facts are not disputed. As would be evident from the records, Shri Suraj Bhan, Assistant Sub Inspector had been the incharge of the party entrusted with the duty of taking 69 under trial prisoners from the Central Jail, Jaipur to the court and back. The evidence on record reveals that Jagdish and Govindram were released by Shri Suraj Bhan even before the other members of the party had started on their way back to the Central Jail, Jaipur with the under trial prisoners. The evidence on record reveals that Jagdish and Govindram were released by Shri Suraj Bhan even before the other members of the party had started on their way back to the Central Jail, Jaipur with the under trial prisoners. It was thus, held that having regard to the role assigned to him, he had failed to ensure that the under trial prisoners had been correctly counted and thus he was guilty of remiss in duty. Vis-a-vis the appellant/writ petitioner, the statement of PW-1 Mohan Das, PW-2 Jagdish Chand, PW-3 Govind Ram, PW-5 Todarmal, PW-9 Ramanand, PW-10 Surendra Malik and PW-13 Abdul Majid, in particular, did prove that he was on duty as a member of the party. PW-5 Todarmal and PW-10 Surendra Malik, in particular, stated that before the departure of the bus carrying the prisoners, the appellant/writ petitioner did count them and had declared that all were in the vehicle. According to the statement of Surendra Malik, this was even after he and Govindram had once counted the prisoners, and the latter had mentioned the number to be 70/71, whereupon Ramesh Chand, Head Constable had suggested that they be recounted. Thus, the appellant/writ petitioner, according to this witness, had certified that all the 69 prisoners were in the bus. As was revealed eventually, one prisoner, Panchoo @ Kalu was found short and had slipped off from the custody of the police. The witness Todarmal stated that as the appellant/writ petitioner had asserted that all the prisoners had boarded the bus, none thereafter did recheck them. The disciplinary authority, on an analysis of the evidence in support of the charge therefore, gave clean-chit to Ramesh Chand, holding that he, as such, did not have any role in the wrong counting of the prisoners, and that, he even had suggested that there be a headcount for the second time. Vis-a-vis the appellant/writ petitioner, it was concluded by the disciplinary authority that the actual counting of the prisoners had been done by him, and that, though one was less, he had asserted that the full complement was present. He was thus, charged with gross misconduct and the dereliction of the duty and imposed penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. 10. He was thus, charged with gross misconduct and the dereliction of the duty and imposed penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect. 10. Tthe materials on record therefore, unambiguously demonstrate that it was the appellant/writ petitioner, who had counted the number of the under trial prisoners before departing from the court premises, and that, inspite of the suggestion made by Ramesh Chand, in view of the anomaly in number, that the second count be made, he asserted that all 69 under trial prisoners were on board. 11. In this view of the matter, the difference in approach adopted by the disciplinary authority, having regard to the role entrusted and discharged by the delinquents in the disciplinary proceeding, cannot be denounced as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory. We are of the view that the plea of unequal treatment in the matter of imposition of penalties, as raised on his behalf, is thus unsustainable in law and on facts. The decision of the disciplinary authority in electing the penalty of stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect qua the appellant/writ petitioner, having regard to the evidence on record, can by no means, be repudiated to be illogical, irrational or vitiated by bias or any extraneous consideration. Not only, the appellant/writ petitioner at all relevant times, was a member of the disciplined force, the evidence on record does unequivocally demonstrate a serious dereliction of duty on his part. In the exercise of the power of judicial review, having regard to the attendant facts and circumstances and the materials on record, we are of the firm opinion that no interference with the impugned judgment and order as well as the disciplinary action taken by the respondents is warranted. 12. The appeal lacks in merit and is dismissed. IA No.3588/2014 stands disposed.Appeal dismissed.. *******