ORDER : The petitioner who was working as Technical Assistant Grade-I in Food Corporation of India has, filed the instant writ petition challenging the punishment order dt. 07.08.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, order dt.1/3.04.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority and order dt.10.02.2004 passed by the Reviewing Authority. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for major penalty vide memorandum dt.23/27.06.2001. It was alleged that while the petitioner was working as T.A. Grade-I, during 1998 at Jind (Haryana) he failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty, in so much so that he accepted Below Relaxed Level (BRL)/sub standard, Rice which was detected BRL, on analysis under the supervision of Shri Lakhan Pal, DM (QC). It was further alleged that in some cases stocks were found beyond PFA limit, rendering the stock unfit for human consumption by the committee and caused huge pecuniary losses to the organization. The statement of article of charges levelled against the petitioner is reproduced hereunder:- “That Shri Surinder Singh, TA-I, while posted and functioning as TA-I, during 1998 failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in so much so that he accepted BRL/sub standard Rice which was detected BRL on analysis under the supervision of Shri Lakhan Pal, DM (QC). In some cases the stocks were found beyond PFA limit rendering the stock unfit for human consumption by committee causing huge pecuniary losses to the organization. Thus Shri Surinder Singh, is charged for a gross lack of devotion to duties, accepting BRL Rice beyond PFA limit rendering unfit for human consumption in tacit connivance with the official, colleague and the millers with ulterior motive and malafide intention. By committing these acts of misconduct Shri Surinder Singh, TA-I, has violated Regulation, 31, 32 and 32(A) of FCI (Staff), Regulation, 1971.” 3. The Disciplinary Authority issued addendum dt.24.12.2001 where certain information/correspondence was added in Annex.-II to IV in memo dt.27.06.2001. The petitioner after receipt of charge-sheet, had filed his reply. The Disciplinary Authority appointed one Shri R.P. Sood as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer came to conclusion that there was overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, and as such charges framed against the petitioner were fully established, beyond any shadow of doubt. The conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer is reproduced hereunder:- “Conclusion 1. The Disciplinary Authority appointed one Shri R.P. Sood as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer came to conclusion that there was overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, and as such charges framed against the petitioner were fully established, beyond any shadow of doubt. The conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer is reproduced hereunder:- “Conclusion 1. In the light of overwhelming evidence, as has been brought out and analysed above, charges framed against the CO are fully established beyond any shadow of doubt. 2. Shri Khushwant Singh, AM (QC) was supervisory officer incharge of ARDC godown Jind at the time of acceptance of rice stocks under reference. He had associated in joint sampling/analysis and had authenticated the genuineness of analysis results. He can not escape his part of culpability in he above case and thus also needs to be proceeded against departmentally.” 4. The petitioner after receipt of enquiry report, had submitted his representation before the Disciplinary Authority and pointed out that there was no loss to FCI, as alleged. The petitioner further pointed out that the petitioner had not participated in the sampling and analysis of the samples and on the basis of joint sampling and joint analysis done in absence of the petitioner, he could not have been punished. 5. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dt.07.08.2002 came to the conclusion that the petitioner was required to be imposed with a penalty of “dismissal from service” and further the payment of gratuity was also to be forfeited as partial compensation for the losses, sustained by the Corporation. The relevant portion of penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is reproduced hereunder:- “Now therefore, the undersigned in exercise powers conferred under Regulation 56 read with Regulation 54 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 hereby imposes the penalty of dismissal from service upon Shri Surinder Singh, TA-I. It is also ordered that in term of powers vested, the undersigned as per provisions contained in Section 4(6) (a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 his entire gratuity amount is forfeited as partial compensation for the losses sustained by the Corporation due to acceptance/disposal of these BRL stocks and substantial amount incurred on conducting the enquiry. It is made clear that even though apparently there is gain while disposing off the stocks but overall there is loss to the Corporation. It is made clear that even though apparently there is gain while disposing off the stocks but overall there is loss to the Corporation. If we take into account interest paid by us because huge amount got stuck up on which we have paid heavy interest.” 6. The petitioner feeling aggrieved against the order of penalty preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority vide order dt.1/3.04.2003 rejected appeal of the petitioner and found that penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority commensurated to the guilt, committed by the petitioner. The operative portion of order of the Appellate Authority is reproduced hereunder:- “In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that appellant was responsible for accepting BRL stock to a large extent. The stocks accepted by him were not only BRL but to the extent beyond PFA lmits, unfit for human consumption and the appellant has not been able to rebut the same in his contention/appeal. The penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority commensurate to the guilt committed by the appellant. I do not see any justification to interfere in the order of the disciplinary authority and the appeal deserves to be rejected. Now, therefore, I, Kush Verma, Zonal Manager (North) as appellate authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 72 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 hereby reject the appeal of Shri Surinder Singh, Ex. TA-I. The copy of this order may be placed in the C.R. Dossier of the appellant. The receipt of this order may be acknowledged.” 7. The petitioner further feeling aggrieved against the rejection of his appeal, preferred second appeal/review petition. The petitioner again requested the Reviewing Authority that he was wrongly punished in the departmental enquiry and charge was not proved. 8. The Managing Director/Reviewing Authority rejected review petition of the petitioner and found no reasons to interfere with the penalty order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The relevant portion of the order passed by Managing Director as Reviewing Authority is reproduced hereunder:- “Aggrieved by the orders of the Disciplinary Authority, Sh. Surinder Singh preferred appeal petition dt.24.08.2002 to the Zonal Manager (North) the Appellate Authority which was rejected by the Zonal Manager (North) vide order No. Vig.5 (217)/02/NZ/HR/MJR/26 dated 1/3.04.2003. Aggrieved by the rejection of his Appeal Petition, Sh. Surinder Singh preferred appeal petition dt.24.08.2002 to the Zonal Manager (North) the Appellate Authority which was rejected by the Zonal Manager (North) vide order No. Vig.5 (217)/02/NZ/HR/MJR/26 dated 1/3.04.2003. Aggrieved by the rejection of his Appeal Petition, Sh. Surinder Singh preferred a Review Petition dt.12.05.2003 to the Managing Director the Reviewing Authority for consideration. I have seen the charge-sheet, Inquiry report and orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as of the Appellate Authority, Review Petition and other related records. The points raised by the appellant in his Review Petition have already been convened in Inquiry report and in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority. I have no reasons to interfere with the orders already passed. The Review Petition is rejected. Now, Therefore, I, V.K. Malhortra, Managing Director being the Reviewing Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 74 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, hereby reject the Review Petition of Sh. Surinder Singh, Ex.TA-I.” 9. The petitioner after rejection of his review petition, has preferred the instant petition and has challenged the impugned orders. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that there was one other co-delinquent Mr. R.P. Sharma who was also posted with the petitioner at same place and he was also given the same charge-sheet containing the same allegations. The petitioner has contended that after enquiry report was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the same punishment order against the other co-delinquent Mr. R.P. Sharma and after the Appellate Authority had rejected his appeal, however, Mr. R.P. Sharma when filed the review petition, his review petition was accepted partly and Shri R.P. Sharma was visited with the penalty of “reduction to the minimum of the time scale of pay of TA-I for a period of three years” with further direction that after expiry of the penalty period, he will start earning increment from the stage of pay which he was drawing at the time of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. 10. The petitioner has submitted in his petition that the authorities could not have passed the dismissal order against the petitioner. The petitioner has also alleged violation of principles of natural justice as during the enquiry the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity as statement of witnesses Mr. V.R. Sharma and Mr. 10. The petitioner has submitted in his petition that the authorities could not have passed the dismissal order against the petitioner. The petitioner has also alleged violation of principles of natural justice as during the enquiry the petitioner was not given adequate opportunity as statement of witnesses Mr. V.R. Sharma and Mr. S.K. Gosain who testified the documents were not even prepared and signed by them and yet the Enquiry Officer found the charges proved. The petitioner has further alleged in his petition that the Disciplinary Authority did not take into account the relevant facts and only on the basis of enquiry report, the petitioner was punished. 11. The petitioner has specifically taken a ground in his petition that once the facts, allegations, evidence against the petitioner in departmental enquiry and against one Shri. R.P. Sharma were common and unusal manner the review petition of the petitioner was rejected and on the other hand, the review petition filed by Shri R.P. Sharma was allowed. The petitioner has pleaded in his petition ground (H) that order of the respondent No. 2 is discriminatory in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court. 12. Mr. Mukesh Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of punishment in respect of identical charges as the petitioner has been visited with the penalty of dismissal from service with forfeiture of gratuity and other co-delinquent who faced the same charges and after rejection of first appeal of the petitioner as well as Shri. R.P. Sharma, the respondents in discriminatory manner allowed the second appeal/review petition reinstating back Shri. R.P. Sharma in service and a penalty of only reduction to minimum time scale of pay of TA-I for period of three years, had been imposed. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Raj Pal Singh in Civil Appeal No. 3511/1998 decided on 20.02.2001 and in the case of Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 331 . Learned counsel has submitted that when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, the different punishments cannot be imposed. 14. Raj Pal Singh in Civil Appeal No. 3511/1998 decided on 20.02.2001 and in the case of Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in (2008) 12 SCC 331 . Learned counsel has submitted that when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, the different punishments cannot be imposed. 14. This Court on 05.03.2018 while hearing the present petition had directed the counsel for the respondents to place on record the complete papers/orders in respect of the enquiry and final reinstatement order passed in respect of co-delinquent Mr. R.P. Sharma. 15. Mr. N.S. Yadav, counsel for the respondents has filed additional affidavit on 02.04.2018 and has placed on record following documents:- Annex.-R-1 Copy of Charge Memo of R.P. Sharma. Annex.-R-2 Copy of Enquiry Report of R.P. Sharma. Annex.-R-3 Copy of Representation by R.P. Sharma. Annex.-R-4 Copy of memo of Appeal filed by R.P. Sharma. Annex.-R-5 Copy of order by Appellate Authority. Annex.-R-6 Copy of Review Petition by R.P. Sharma. Annex.-R-7 Copy of order of Reviewing Authority. Annex.-R-8 Copy of Statement of Joint Analysis. 16. Mr. N.S. Yadav, counsel for the respondents, has submitted that the petitioner is guilty of serious misconduct and loss caused by him is of huge amount and as such the authorities have passed the penalty order and further rejected the appeal/review petition after considering entire facts. 17. Learned counsel has further submitted that there is no case of discrimination as has been alleged by the petitioner. Learned counsel has submitted that the case of Shri R.P. Sharma was on a different footing as loss caused by him was not of huge amount and the Reviewing Authority has taken note of such facts while allowing the review petition of Shri R.P. Sharma. 18. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. 19. Before adverting on merits of the case, it would be relevant to quote the charges which have been levelled against the other co-delinquent Shri R.P. Sharma who was also posted along with the petitioner at the same place. 18. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the material available on record. 19. Before adverting on merits of the case, it would be relevant to quote the charges which have been levelled against the other co-delinquent Shri R.P. Sharma who was also posted along with the petitioner at the same place. Statement of article of charges against Shri R.P. Sharma is reproduced hereunder:- “That Shri R.P. Sharma, TA-I, while posted and functioning as TA-I, during 1998 failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in so much so that he accepted BRL/sub standard Rice which was detected BRL on analysis under the supervision of Shri Lakhan Pal, DM (QC). In some cases the stocks were found beyond PFA limit rendering the stock unfit for human consumption by committee causing huge pecuniary losses to the organization. Thus Shri R.P. Sharma, TA-I is charged for gross lack of devotion to duties, accepting BRL Rice beyond PFA limit rendering unfit for human consumption in tacit connivance with the official, colleague and the millers with ulterior motive and malafide intention. By committing these acts of misconduct Shri R.P. Sharma, TA-I has violated Regulation, 31, 32 & 32(A) of FCI (Staff), Regulation, 1971.” 20. The conclusion of Enquiry report initiated against the Shri R.P. Sharma is quoted hereunder:- “In the light of overwhelming evidence, as has been brought out and analysed above, charges framed against the CO are fully established beyond any shadow of doubt. Shri Khushwant Singh, AM (QC) was supervisory officer incharge of ARDC godown Jind at the time of acceptance of rice stocks under reference. He had associated in joint sampling/analysis and had authenticated the genuineness of analysis results. He can not escape his part of culpability in he above case and thus also needs to be proceeded against departmentally.” 21. Shri Khushwant Singh, AM (QC) was supervisory officer incharge of ARDC godown Jind at the time of acceptance of rice stocks under reference. He had associated in joint sampling/analysis and had authenticated the genuineness of analysis results. He can not escape his part of culpability in he above case and thus also needs to be proceeded against departmentally.” 21. The order of the Disciplinary Authority passed against Shri R.P. Sharma has been filed as (Annex.-R/13) with the rejoinder by the petitioner, the operative portion is quoted hereunder:- “Now therefore, the undersigned in exercise powers conferred under Regulation 56 read with Regulation 54 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 hereby imposes the penalty of dismissal from service upon Shri R.P. Sharma, TA-I. It is also ordered that in term of powers vested, the undersigned as per provisions contained in Section 4(6) (a) of the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 his entire gratuity amount is forfeited as partial compensation for the losses sustained by the Corporation due to acceptance/disposal of these BRL stocks and substantial amount incurred on conducting the enquiry. It is made clear that even though apparently there is gain while disposing off the stocks but overall there is loss to the Corporation. If we take into account interest paid by us because huge amount got stuck up on which we have paid heavy interest.” 22. The order passed by the Appellate Authority in respect of Shri R.P. Sharma is reproduced hereunder:- “In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that appellant was responsible for accepting BRL stock to a large extent. The stocks accepted by him were not only BRL but to the extent beyond PFA limits, unfit for human consumption and the appellant has not been able to rebut the same in his contention/appeal. The penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority commensurate to the guilt committed by the appellant. I do not see any justification to interfere in the order of the disciplinary authority and the appeal deserves to be rejected. Now, therefore, I, Kush Verma, Zonal Manager (North) as appellate authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 72 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 hereby reject the appeal of Shri R.P. Sharma, Ex. TA-I. The copy of this order may be placed in the C.R. Dossier of the appellant. The receipt of this order may be acknowledged” 23. Now, therefore, I, Kush Verma, Zonal Manager (North) as appellate authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 72 of FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971 hereby reject the appeal of Shri R.P. Sharma, Ex. TA-I. The copy of this order may be placed in the C.R. Dossier of the appellant. The receipt of this order may be acknowledged” 23. The order passed by the Reviewing Authority in review petition/second appeal in respect of Shri R.P. Sharma is reproduced hereunder:- “Aggrieved by the rejection of his appeal petition, Sh. R.P. Sharma preferred a Review Petition dt.01.06.2003 to the Managing Director the Reviewing Authority for consideration. I have carefully gone through the Review Petition dt.01.06.2003 preferred by Sh. R.P. Sharma and other related records of the case, I find that the CO has contended that out of total rice stocks of 805 MT, he was responsible for acceptance of 194 MT. It is correct that as Tech. Assitt. he had accepted 194 MT and the balance 611 MT were accepted by Sh. Surinder Singh, another TA but this does not absolve him of acceptance of BRL rice stocks. He has further contended that all these stocks had been stored in a mixed condition and the sampling was also done taking the stocks of both the TAs together and he had procured good stocks. At the time of inspection of the stocks, this aspect should have been checked. This was not followed. Taking into account the totality of the circumstances of the case, I propose to modify the penalty of “Dismissal from service alongwith the forfeiture of his gratuity payable to him” imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority to that of “Reduction to the minimum of the time scale of pay of TA-I for a period of three years. Now, therefore, I V.K. Malhotra, Managing Director being the Reviewing Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 74 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, hereby modify the penalty of “Dismissal from service alongwith the forfeiture of is gratuity payable to him” imposed by Sr. Now, therefore, I V.K. Malhotra, Managing Director being the Reviewing Authority in exercise of the powers conferred under Regulation 74 of the FCI (Staff) Regulations, 1971, hereby modify the penalty of “Dismissal from service alongwith the forfeiture of is gratuity payable to him” imposed by Sr. Regional Manager, Haryana, Chandigarh vide order No. V&S/7(61)/Rohtak/99 dt.07.08.2002 and upheld by Zonal Manager (North) vide order No.Vig.5(217)/02/NZ/HR/MJR/25 dt.1/3.04.2003 to that of “Reduction to the minimum of the time scale of pay of TA.-I for a period of three years with further directions that after the expiry of the penalty period, he will start earning increment from the stage of pay which he was drawing at the time of penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.” 24. This Court finds that till the stage of Appellate Authority, the same authorities have passed the orders and the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority have been the same persons, who have passed the order against the petitioner as well as the other co-delinquent Shri. R.P. Sharma. 25. This Court finds that the Reviewing Authority has quoted the contention raised by other co-delinquent Shri R.P. Sharma and after quoting the version of Shri. R.P. Sharma, the Reviewing Authority has reached to conclusion by holding that taking into account the totality of circumstances of the case, he proposed to modify the penalty of “dismissal from service alongwith forfeiture of gratuity payable to him”, imposed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority to that of “reduction to the minimum of the time scale of pay of TA-I for a period of three years”. 26. This Court finds that the allegations levelled against the petitioner and other co-delinquent are identical, so called huge pecuniary loss to the Corporation also has the same figure of Rs.48,99,696.19 in both the charge-sheets. The view taken by the Reviewing Authority has not reflected as in what manner the same person exercising the power of Managing Director, has rejected the review petition of the petitioner and has allowed the review petition of the other co-delinquent Shri R.P. Sharma. Moreover the Reviewing Authority has not interfered with penalty due to minor lapse or less financial loss to Corporation, it has only quoted the contention of Shri. R.P. Sharma but reasoning is not given at all to take lenient view. 27. Moreover the Reviewing Authority has not interfered with penalty due to minor lapse or less financial loss to Corporation, it has only quoted the contention of Shri. R.P. Sharma but reasoning is not given at all to take lenient view. 27. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the quantity in respect of Shri. R.P. Sharma, was different with respect to the acceptance of Below Relaxed Level (BRL) Rice and the petitioner is alleged to have committed more serious misconduct by accepting more quantity of BRL, this Court finds that the charge against both the delinquents is in respect to not maintaining absolute integrity, devotion to duty and further due to lack of devotion to duty, both the officers misused official position with the Miller with the ulterior motive and malafide intention. Both the officers were said to have committed acts of misconduct which required a major penalty to be imposed after holding departmental enquiry. 28. This Court finds that there is no iota of difference between the allegations levelled against the petitioner and Shri. R.P. Sharma, the same finding/verbatim has been given by the Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority have also used the same words while dealing with both the delinquents. This Court finds that assuming though not admitting that there was difference of quantity alleged to have been kept by the petitioner as sub-standard rice, the same cannot be a ground to impose a different penalty on the petitioner. The difference of quantity which is sought to be created by the respondents and as pleaded by counsel for the respondents before this Court, is absolutely artificial. 29. The Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Raj Pal Singh (supra) has held that if the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory. The relevant portion of judgment of Apex Court is reproduced hereunder:- “But when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory.” 30. The Apex Court in the case of Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. The relevant portion of judgment of Apex Court is reproduced hereunder:- “But when the charges are same and identical in relation to one and the same incident, then to deal with the delinquents differently in the award of punishment, would be discriminatory.” 30. The Apex Court in the case of Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (supra) has held that a person cannot be discriminated in the matter of imposing penalty and equals have to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. The relevant paras of the judgment of the Apex Court are reproduced hereunder:- “20. We may reiterate the settled position of law for the benefit of the administrative authorities that any act of the repository of power whether legislative or administrative or quasi-judicial is open to challenge if it is so arbitrary or unreasonable that no fair minded authority could ever have made it. The concept of equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India embraces the entire realm of State action. It would extend to an individual as well not only when he is discriminated against in the matter of exercise of right, but also in the matter of imposing liability upon him. Equal is to be treated equally even in the matter of executive or administrative action. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of equality is now turned as a synonym of fairness in the concept of justice and stands as the most accepted methodology of a governmental action. The administrative action is to be just on the test of 'fair play' and reasonableness. 21. We have, therefore, examined the case of the appellant in the light of the established doctrine of equality and fair play. The principle is the same, namely, that there should be no discrimination between the appellant and HC Vijay Pal as regards the criteria of punishment of similar nature in departmental proceedings. The appellant and HC Vijay Pal were both similarly situated, in fact, HC Vijay Pal was the real culprit who, besides departmental proceedings, was an accused in the excise case filed against him by the Excise Staff of Andhra Pradesh for violating the Excise Prohibition Orders operating in the State. The appellant and HC Vijay Pal were both similarly situated, in fact, HC Vijay Pal was the real culprit who, besides departmental proceedings, was an accused in the excise case filed against him by the Excise Staff of Andhra Pradesh for violating the Excise Prohibition Orders operating in the State. The appellate authority exonerated HC Vijay Pal mainly on the ground of his acquittal by the criminal court in the Excise case and after exoneration, he has been promoted to the higher post, whereas the appeal and the revision filed by the appellant against the order of punishment have been rejected on technical ground that he has not exercised proper and effective control over HC Vijay Pal at the time of commission of the Excise offence by him in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The order of the disciplinary authority would reveal that for the last about three decades the appellant has served the Police Department of Haryana in different capacity with unblemished record of service. 22. In the backdrop of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment upon the appellant for exhibiting slackness in the discharge of duties during his visit to Hyderabad when HC Vijay Pal was found involved in Excise offence, as also the orders of the appellate and revisional authorities confirming the said order are unfair, arbitrary, unreasonable, unjustified and also against the doctrine of equality. The High Court has failed to appreciate and consider the precise legal questions raised by the appellant before it and dismissed the Second Appeal by unreasoned judgment. The judgment of the High Court, therefore, confirming the judgments and decrees of the first appellate court and that of the trial court is not sustainable. The appellant deserves to be treated equally in the matter of departmental punishment initiated against him for the acts of omissions and commissions vis-a-vis HC Vijay Pal, the driver of the vehicle.” 31. This Court finds that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, the employer has to act in a fair and reasonable manner and that two similarly situated persons cannot be discriminated in the matter of award of penalty, when the allegations against two persons, are identical. 32. This Court finds that as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, the employer has to act in a fair and reasonable manner and that two similarly situated persons cannot be discriminated in the matter of award of penalty, when the allegations against two persons, are identical. 32. This Court finds that the contention which raised by the other co-delinquent Shri. R.P. Sharma in his review petition has been quoted only and he had stated that the stocks were in the mixed condition and sample was also taken taking the stocks of both the Technical Assitant together and he had procured good stocks. He further narrated in his review petition that at the time of inspection of the stocks, this aspect should have been taken into account and TA wise consignment should have been checked and this was not followed. 33. This Court finds that the same plea was taken by the petitioner and a finding has been given by the Enquiry Officer in his report that the Enquiry Officer has recorded the following findings with respect to the plea which was taken by Shri R.P. Sharma. The relevant portion of the Enquiry Report is reproduced hereunder:- “The issues raised by CO in his defence have been duly considered in reference to oral/documentary evidence adduced during enquiry proceedings. There is evidence on record to prove that rice stocks had been accepted by either Sh. Surinder Singh, TA-I or by Shri R.P. Sharma, TA-I. Details of lot wise acceptance find duly indicated in Ex.D-V. Combined stacking of rice was resorted to TA wise stocks of accepted rice was not undertaken, thereby losing its independent identity.” 34. This Court finds that once the Enquiry Officer has also recorded a finding that combined stacking of rice was resorted to TA-wise stock of accepted rice was not undertaken thereby losing its independent identity, it is not understandable as why the Reviewing Authority came to the conclusion that in spite of common findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of petitioner and other co-delinquent Shri R.P. Sharma, the version of Shri. R.P. Sharma has been believed and the contention raised by the petitioner has altogether been ignored. 35. 35. This Court finds that the authorities have not cared to consider the case of the petitioner in the same manner as they have dealt with the case of Shri R.P. Sharma and as such the discrimination has been meted out to the petitioner, in respect of imposition of penalty. 36. This Court, in normal course could have referred the matter back to the authorities to pass fresh appropriate orders but considering the fact that the petitioner has been removed from service by way of dismissal in the year 2002 and his appeal has also been rejected on 1/3.04.2003 and his review petition was dismissed on 10.02.2004, there will be no purpose to send the matter back to the Managing Director/Reviewing Authority to pass fresh order. This Court considering the facts of the present case and perticularly order of Reviewing Authority passed in respect of the other co-delinquent Shri R.P. Shrama on 07.10.2003, deems it proper to direct the respondent/Managing Director to pass the same penalty order as has been passed in the case of other co-delinquent Shri R.P. Sharma and the petitioner’s case in respect of penalty should also be accordingly modified and it should be given the same effect. 37. The orders passed by Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority & Reviewing Authority dt.07.08.2002, 1/3.04.2003 & 10.02.2004 respectively, are quashed and set aside. The present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to pass the fresh order of penalty as has been passed in the case other co-delinquent of Shri. R.P. Sharma, within a period of six weeks. 38. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed.