JUDGMENT : DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner who was serving as a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has challenged the order dated 20th October, 2010 passed by the Commandant, 30 Bn. CRPF imposing penalty of dismissal from service upon the petitioner as well as the appellate order dated 21st October, 2011 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed. 2. The undisputed facts are that on 22.10.2009 the platoon in which the petitioner was then serving was observing weekly weapon cleaning & maintenance day. The Platoon Commander and the Company 2 I/C specifically directed all the members of the platoon to clean the weapons kept in the Kote (Armory). It was further clarified that nobody would clean their own weapons (weapons personally issued to the members of the force) before keeping all the weapons in the Kote. It is not disputed that the weapons from the Armoury were taken out and cleaned by the platoon members. At this stage there is slight divergence between the two sides. According to the prosecution the members were not permitted to clean their weapons whereas according to the petitioner-delinquent official the orders were that after all the weapons from the Armoury had been cleaned the constables could clean their weapons personally issued. We accept the version of the delinquent officer to be correct for the limited purpose of deciding this petition. Even according to the delinquent officer after all the weapons which had been taken out from the Armoury, were being kept in the Armoury by the Jawans. He at the last minute decided to clean his own weapon. According to him he went back to the barracks and brought out the weapon issued to him which was an AK47 rifle bearing Butt No.48, Body No.0877. 3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he was callous and negligent while cleaning his own AK47 rifle inasmuch as he did not ensure that the loaded magazine attached to the rifle was removed from the same. He therefore was guilty of cleaning a loaded rifle. Furthermore after he cleaned the rifle he cocked the rifle and fired it and due to the burst of fire another constable, D.J. Sapkale received injuries and died as a result of the injuries received. 4. There is no doubt that the incident is accidental. He therefore was guilty of cleaning a loaded rifle. Furthermore after he cleaned the rifle he cocked the rifle and fired it and due to the burst of fire another constable, D.J. Sapkale received injuries and died as a result of the injuries received. 4. There is no doubt that the incident is accidental. The question is whether the delinquent official was negligent or not. Charge was framed against the delinquent official and one Head Constable Ramesh Singh and the relevant portion of the Article of Charges reads as follows: “STATEMENT OF ARTICLE OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST No. 001372606 CT/GD JATANTA NAMA AND No. 911271287 HC/GD RAMESH SINGH OF C/30 BN, CRPF ARTICLE-I “That the said No. 001372606 CT/GD Jayanta Nama and No. 911271287 HC/GD Ramesh Singh of C/30 BN, CRPF while functioning as CT/GD and HC/GD on 22/02/2009 committed an offence in which they were careless while engaged in weekly maintenance/cleaning of the service Rifle AK47, Butt No.S/48. Body No.0877 which was issued to CT/GD Jayanta Nama, they have failed to remove the loaded magazine from weapon as well as inspect the chamber of the weapon, resulting an accidental burst fire caused death of No.031450906 CT/GD D. J. Sapkale which is an offence U/S 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1947 read with rule 27 CRPF Rule, 1955. ARTICLE-II “That the said No.001372606 CT/GD Jayanta Nama and No.911271287 HC/GD Ramesh Singh of C/30 BN, CRPF while functioning as CT/GD and HC/GD on 22/02/2009 committed disobedience/negligent act in handling of weapon during weekly maintenance/ cleaning of the service Rifle AK47, Butt No.S/48. Body No.0877 which was issued to CT/GD Jayanta Nama and failed to follow the instruction as well as the drill on the procedure to be adopted issued from time to time, resulting death of No.031450906 CT/GD D.J. Sapkale which is act of disobedience of order/negligence of duty and misconduct in their capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1947 read with rule 27 CRPF Rule, 1955. Sd/- (RAJ KUMAR) COMMANDANT 30 BN” 5. We have perused the file of the Inquiry Officer and we find that in fact both Shri Jayanta Nama petitioner herein and Shri Ramesh Singh, the other Head Constable had pleaded guilty when the charges were initially read out to them. However, the Inquiry Officer decided to record the statements of the witnesses to ensure that complete justice is done. We have perused the file of the Inquiry Officer and we find that in fact both Shri Jayanta Nama petitioner herein and Shri Ramesh Singh, the other Head Constable had pleaded guilty when the charges were initially read out to them. However, the Inquiry Officer decided to record the statements of the witnesses to ensure that complete justice is done. After inquiry the Inquiry Officer found the petitioners guilty. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner and imposition of withdrawal of one increment of Ramesh Singh. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the Disciplinary Authority the petitioner herein, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. This appeal has been dismissed and hence the present petition. 6. Shri Somik Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised four points before us. His first argument is that the unfortunate incident was only an accident and therefore no disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated against the petitioner. His second submission is that neither in the charge sheet nor in the inquiry report nor in the order of the Disciplinary Authority and not even in the order of the Appellate Authority there is mention of the rule/instruction which is said to have been violated. His third argument is that there should be parity in punishment and he submits that both the petitioner, Jayanta Nama and Head Constable, Ramesh Singh were charged for the same offences and once they have been found guilty of the same offences there could not have been separate punishments inflicted upon. His last submission is that the penalty imposed is highly disproportionate to the negligence if any committed and that the penalty shocks the judicial conscience and this Court may interfere in the punishment imposed. 7. As far as the first point raised by Shri Somik Deb is concerned that need not detain us for long. Punishment under section can be imposed on any member of the force when he is found guilty of disobedience or is negligent in the discharge of duties or there is remissness in the discharge of any duty or of other misconduct in this capacity. It is true, as urged by Shri Somik Deb that the petitioner had no intention of killing the deceased. It is true that this is an unfortunate accident. However, we must find out how the accident occurred. It is true, as urged by Shri Somik Deb that the petitioner had no intention of killing the deceased. It is true that this is an unfortunate accident. However, we must find out how the accident occurred. The finding of the Inquiry Officer is that the accident happened due to the negligence of the petitioner. Negligence in this case is writ large. A member of an armed force is expected to know that he should not clean a loaded rifle. This is the basic training given to any member of the armed forces. How to maintain a rifle? How to clean it? How to use it? These are all taught. In this case even as per the version of the petitioner he had cleaned a loaded AK-47 rifle without even caring to remove the loaded magazine from the rifle. 8. In this behalf we may make reference to two of the paragraphs of the appeal filed by petitioner herein, which read as follows: “2. That I on 22.09.2009 it was the “Weekly Weapon cleaning & maintenance day” I along with the other members of my platoon (Platoon No.9) were detailed for the said task. It was specifically directed by the Platoon Commander as well as the Company 2 I/C that the all members of the platoon will clean the weapons kept in the Kote and nobody will clean their own weapon (personally issued to them) before cleaning the all weapons of the Kote so kept. All weapons whichever kept in the Kote were brought by the platoon members along with me and started to clean them viz. Insas rifles, Light Machine Gun, Carbine and SLR etc. After its proper cleaning the all weapons were being kept in the Kote again by the platoon Jawans. At the last moment, when I saw that almost weapons have been deposited into the Kote, I went to my barracks and brought my personal weapon i.e., AK-47 But No.48 Body No.0877 (personally issued to me). When I came out from the barracks, I saw that the Head Constable No. 911271287 Ramesh Kumar was standing there having an oiled pull through. I cocked my rifle and requested him to draw his oiled pull through in the barrel of my rifle AK-47. 3. When I came out from the barracks, I saw that the Head Constable No. 911271287 Ramesh Kumar was standing there having an oiled pull through. I cocked my rifle and requested him to draw his oiled pull through in the barrel of my rifle AK-47. 3. That after drawing his pull through he went away in kote side and I put my AK-47 barrel in the upper/sky side and pushed the trigger to ensure that my file is vacant and round less. But unfortunately it was fired suddenly and accidentally and that moment I did not control myself and in the meantime the barrel of rifle was downed and fired automatically. Suddenly the members of the platoon cried that fallen down.... Fallen down…... Immediately I kept my rifle on the ground and ran away to that side. I saw No.031450906 CT/GD D.J. Sapkalay was fallen down and injured by the bullet. I so shocked and sat down on the ground by putting my hands on the head. Thereafter, the CT/GD Sapkale was carried to the Hospital in which he was declared dead. After that I was suspended by the Commandant 30 BN immediately.” The stand of the petitioner himself is that he did not remove the loaded magazine. He also states that he kept the barrel of the AK47 skywards and pushed the trigger to ensure that his rifle is vacant and round less. Unfortunately it fired and he could not control the rifle which fell down and the gun burst of gunfire, hit the deceased. This is a case where the principle of res ipsa loquitur is straightway applicable. The facts speak for themselves. Any person who uses a firearm before cocking the rifle or pressing the trigger must ensure whether it is loaded or not. His action of pressing the trigger to ensure that the rifle is not loaded itself is a gross act of negligence. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that he could be punished. 9. The second ground raised is that there is no mention of any rule. We find no merit in this contention. Any member of the armed forces who is trained to use arms and ammunitions is also taught how the arms are to be kept. Therefore, we are clearly of the view that he could be punished. 9. The second ground raised is that there is no mention of any rule. We find no merit in this contention. Any member of the armed forces who is trained to use arms and ammunitions is also taught how the arms are to be kept. Such members are also taught the manner in which to clean such arms and they are also taught the safety mechanisms of ensuring that an arm, especially a rifle is always kept unloaded except when it has to be used. 10. The third argument raised by Shri Somik Deb is that there should be parity in punishment. He submits that since the charges against Head Constable Ramesh Singh and the petitioner were identical and they have been both held guilty of the charges framed against them there could not have been two totally divergent punishments—one of dismissal of service and one of withdrawal of one increment. In support of this contention Shri Somik Deb has placed reliance on the judgments of Apex Court in Director General of Police & Ors. v. G. Dasayan, (1998) 2 SCC 407 , Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. (2013) 3 SCC 73 and Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors. v. Triveni Sharan Mishra, (2014) 10 SCC 346 . Every case has to be decided on its own facts. There can be no quarrel with the proposition of law that if two people are found guilty of an identical offence then the both should be vested with the same punishment. The allegations against the petitioner have already been set out by us. Now we may give the background of the allegation against Ramesh Singh. The allegation against Ramesh Singh is only that the petitioner when he was cleaning his rifle asked Ramesh Singh who was having an oiled “pull-through” in his hand to pull the “pull-through” through the barrel of the rifle of the petitioner. This is done for the purpose of oiling and cleaning the barrel of the rifle. There is no allegation against Ramesh Singh and in fact there can be no such allegation against him that he did not ensure that the rifle of the petitioner was unloaded. This is done for the purpose of oiling and cleaning the barrel of the rifle. There is no allegation against Ramesh Singh and in fact there can be no such allegation against him that he did not ensure that the rifle of the petitioner was unloaded. In all probability Ramesh Singh would have thought that the petitioner before asking him to even pull the “pull-through” would have ensured that his rifle is unloaded. It is not Ramesh Singh who cocked the rifle. It is not Ramesh Singh who pressed the trigger of the rifle. The negligence of Ramesh Singh if any is of much lesser nature than the callous and blatant negligence shown by the petitioner. In G. Dasayan’s case (supra) the facts were that one head constable and three constables of the police were charged with coercing and extracting gold and jewels from a person. All the four were together charged with the same offence. Two constables were found not guilty. The head constable was found guilty but the penalty imposed upon him was of compulsory retirement whereas the other constable who was found guilty was dismissed from service. The Inquiry Officer had found that both the head constables and the constable had together demanded and extracted the gold jewelry from one innocent citizen. It is in these circumstances that the Apex Court held that two people could not have vested with separate punishments and applying the principle of parity reduced the punishment in the case of the constable to that of compulsory retirement. The second case relied upon by Shri Somik Deb is of Rajendra Yadav (supra). This case is again of members of the police force and in fact the Apex Court found that the police official who had a greater role in demanding and accepting the money as bribe had been visited with lesser punishment and the appellant before the Apex Court who had only played a passive role, was inflicted with a more serious punishment of dismissal from service. There also the principle of parity was applied and the punishment reduced. The last decision is of Life Insurance Corporation v. Triveni Sharan Mishra (supra) in which the Apex Court held that when two persons are guilty of the same offence of not disclosing their higher qualifications then both must be visited with the same penalty. There also the principle of parity was applied and the punishment reduced. The last decision is of Life Insurance Corporation v. Triveni Sharan Mishra (supra) in which the Apex Court held that when two persons are guilty of the same offence of not disclosing their higher qualifications then both must be visited with the same penalty. As far as the present case is concerned on going through the records and from what we have discussed above it is more than apparent that it is the petitioner who was totally guilty. The role of Ramesh Singh was either of no negligence or of very little negligence. Ramesh Singh has not challenged the imposition of his penalty and therefore we are not saying anything further in the matter but we are clearly of the view that it is the negligence of the petitioner which is writ large and because of his negligence another human life has been lost. His role cannot be equated to the role of Head Constable Ramesh Singh and there can be no parity of punishments in the present case. 11. The last submission of Shri Somik Deb is that the punishment is disproportionately high. We are not at all in agreement with this submission. We are dealing with members of the armed forces. If they do not follow the basic training of how to clean weapons, anarchy would prevail. The petitioner is lucky that he was not charged with having committed an offence under Section 304 of the IPC. The only action which has been taken against him is civil action of dismissal from service and we feel that no lesser punishment could have been inflicted in this case. 12. We therefore find no merit in the petition which accordingly stands dismissed.