JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure-3) issued by respondent no.3 in the departmental proceeding and for quashing of order dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-4) issued by the Inspector General of Prisons, Jharkhand, Ranchi (respondent no.2). 2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts as averred in the writ application is that in pursuance to the order dated 12.05.2006 issued by respondent no.3 the petitioner and one Saryu Ram were placed under suspension in relation to an alleged occurrence dated 12.05.2006 at the 2 relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Warden at Divisional Jail, Koderma. The petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 01.06.2006, which was received by him on 09.09.2006 and the petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges and for revoking the order of suspension and also for conclusion of enquiry. When no order was passed for revocation of suspension order nor any progress was made by the departmental proceeding, the petitioner filed in W.P. (S) No.935 of 2007 for quashing the order of suspension and the said writ petition was disposed of on 05.04.2007 with direction to the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this this order. The order of suspension stood revoked on 30.06.2007 since the departmental proceeding was not concluded, in terms of the order dated 05.04.2007 in W.P. (S) No.935 of 2007 and the petitioner was posted at Divisional Jail, Chatra. The respondent no.3 vide order dated 03.07.2007 (Annexure-3) passed a final order in the departmental proceeding whereby the petitioner was restored back to the initial pay scale of warden and a further order was passed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.7273 of 2007 which was disposed of on 04.02.2008 with a direction to respondent no.2 to hear and dispose of the appeal, if any, within a period of two months from the date of production of copy of this order. The appellate authority vide order dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-4) affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority (respondent no.3). The appellate authority vide order dated 15.07.2008 (Annexure-4) affirmed the order passed by the disciplinary authority (respondent no.3). The petitioner left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy has approached this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that the petitioner was neither given reasonable opportunity of hearing nor supplied with a copy of the inquiry report, impugned order passed in the departmental proceeding is in breach of principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charges against the petitioner is defective since no list of documents has been mentioned nor supplied to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the impugned orders are non-speaking and unreasoned and are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner and one Saryu Ram faced the inquiry though Saryu Ram has been imposed minor punishment but the petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is entitled to the same relief as has been extended to Mr. Saryu Ram on the doctrine of parity. In order to buttress, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decisions on the doctrine of parity as reported in (2003) 1 JLJR 604, (2006) 2 SCC 747 and (2011) 1 JLJR 9 . 4. As against this learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, Mr. H. K. Mehta has reiterated the submissions made in the counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that all the orders have been passed after finding the petitioner guilty and are all based on facts. The conducting officer has found almost all the charges levelled against the petitioner true and has recommended for major punishment. The petitioner was issued second show cause before the final order and finding his reply vague and unsatisfactory, the petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the inquiry officer after proper scrutiny submitted enquiry report against Saryu Ram basing on which, minor punishment was imposed against him. The petitioner was issued second show cause before the final order and finding his reply vague and unsatisfactory, the petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment. Learned counsel for the State further submits that the inquiry officer after proper scrutiny submitted enquiry report against Saryu Ram basing on which, minor punishment was imposed against him. But so far the charges against the petitioner is concerned, five charges were levelled against the petitioner and enquiry officer found guilty in 4 charges which were serious in nature in view of Rule nos. 618, 619, 623 and 502 of Jail Manual. Learned counsel further submits that save and except the charge no.2 all the charges were proved against the petitioner moreover, the petitioner has filed the appeal before the appellate authority i.e. I.G. Prisons, Jharkhand. In which the I.G. Prisons after proper scrutiny of the charges held him guilty therefore, proved charges of the petitioner differs from one Saryu Ram. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties at length and having bestowed my consideration to the documents on records, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference due to reasons stated hereinbelow:- (i) That on perusal of the charges against the petitioner and against Saryu Ram are more or less similar and both the petitioner and Saryu Ram have found guilty by the inquiry officer but to the utter surprise and consternation the petitioner has been inflicted with major punishment whereas Saryu Ram has been let off with minor punishment. (ii) Service jurisprudence evolved by the Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. So far as parity in quantum of punishment among the delinquents is concerned, it would be profitable to refer to a decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others as reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 , in particular paragraph which is quoted herein below: “9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.” 6. In view of the aforesaid reasons and as logical sequitur to the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court (Supra), the impugned order of punishment dated 03.07.2007 passed by the disciplinary authority as well as order of appellate authority dated 15.07.2008 and revisional authority dated 09.10.2010 are hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to pass appropriate orders on the quantum of punishment keeping in view the punishment inflicted on the co-delinquent within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. 7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.