ORDER : D.N. Patel, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner), whose writ petition being W.P. (S) no. 4298 of 2003 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 9th April, 2010 whereby the punishment inflicted upon this appellant of dismissal has been confirmed and hence this original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present appellant is the original petitioner who was appointed as a Constable at Tata Nagar Rail Police Station and duty was assigned to him on platforms of Tata Nagar Railway Station. It further appears from the facts of the case and it also appears from the charge-sheet that on 19th October, 2001 when this appellant was performing his duty on Platform no.1 of the Tata Nagar Railway Station along with two other Constables, they demanded illegal gratification of Rs.140/-. Ultimately, a complaint was filed and a criminal case was also instituted and the civil enquiry/departmental enquiry were also initiated. Charge-sheet was issued on 22nd February, 2002 (Annexure-3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). The Enquiry Officer was appointed and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard Inquiry Officer gave his report that the charges levelled against this appellant has been proved which is for illegal gratification of Rs.140/-. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment vide order dated 21st September, 2002 after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant, the said order is at Annexure-4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and the punishment inflicted upon this appellant by the Disciplinary Authority was of dismissal. Against this order a departmental appeal was preferred by this appellant which was dismissed by the departmental appellate authority vide order dated 14th August, 2003 (Annexure-5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Hence, the writ petition was preferred being W.P.(S) no.4298 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 9th April, 2010 and hence the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Hence, the writ petition was preferred being W.P.(S) no.4298 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 9th April, 2010 and hence the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Much has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that other two constables who were also with this appellant on Platform no.1 at Tata Nagar Railway Station and against whom also the charge-sheet was filed for illegal gratification of Rs.140/-, for them lesser punishment has been inflicted upon. They were punished for the same charge and 5 increments have been withheld and they were demoted to the initial pay-scale of the constables whereas this appellant has been dismissed from the services. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court (2013) 3 SCC 73 , para-9 and submitted that equality in imposing the punishment should also be maintained by the disciplinary authority. If the other delinquents are sailing in the same boat and lesser punishment is inflicted upon them then no discrimination can be made against this appellant and no higher punishment can be inflicted upon this appellant. It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that even otherwise also the punishment inflicted upon this appellant for dismissal is shockingly disproportionate and unreasonably excessive. This is against Rule 826 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. We are not accepting this contention mainly for the reasons that:- (a) Lead role was played by this appellant in comparison to the other two delinquents who were with him. (b) Rs.140/- was demanded from a passenger by this appellant and not by the other two delinquents. (c) Thus, the demand was started from this appellant of illegal gratification. Moreover, Rs.140/- was also found out from the possession of this appellant which makes the case of this appellant different from the case of the rest of other two delinquents. (d) This appellant was named in the F.I.R. which is immediate version of the complainant viz.- Bhagwan Das. Of course, this complainant has turned hostile, when the criminal case was proceeded further, against this appellant with which we are no concerned. The fact remains that in the initial version of the complainant, this appellant was named whereas the names of the other two delinquents were not mentioned. (e) This appellant was identified by the complainant. 4. Of course, this complainant has turned hostile, when the criminal case was proceeded further, against this appellant with which we are no concerned. The fact remains that in the initial version of the complainant, this appellant was named whereas the names of the other two delinquents were not mentioned. (e) This appellant was identified by the complainant. 4. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant and we are in agreement with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge because only the question of quantum of punishment has been argued out and looking to the fact that this appellant was working in a disciplined force. Illegal gratification cannot be demanded by the police, otherwise, the minimum punishment can be inflicted is of dismissal and hence it cannot be levelled as shockingly disproportionate punishment nor it can be levelled unreasonable excessive punishment. 5. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Divisional Controller, N.E.K.R.T.C. v. H. Amaresh, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 187 , in paragraph no.18 as under: “18. In the instant case, the misappropriation of the funds by the delinquent employee was only Rs. 360.95. This Court has considered the punishment that may be awarded to the delinquent employees who misappropriated the funds of the Corporation and the factors to be considered. This Court in a catena of judgments held that the loss of confidence is the primary factor and not the amount of money misappropriated and that the sympathy or generosity cannot be a factor which is impermissible in law. When an employee is found guilty of pilferage or of misappropriating the Corporation’s funds, there is nothing wrong in the Corporation losing confidence or faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of dismissal. In such cases, there is no place for generosity or misplaced sympathy on the part of the judicial forums and interfering therefore with the quantum of punishment. The judgment in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti was also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of the passengers of the vehicle from whom the said sum was collected was also not essential. The judgment in Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti was also relied on in this judgment among others. Examination of the passengers of the vehicle from whom the said sum was collected was also not essential. In our view, possession of the said excess sum of money on the part of the respondent, a fact proved, is itself misconduct and hence the Labour Court and the learned Judges of the High Court misdirected themselves in insisting on the evidence of the passengers which is wholly not essential. This apart, the respondent did not have any explanation for having carried the said excess amount. This omission was sufficient to hold him guilty. This act was so grossly negligent that the respondent was not fit to be retained as a conductor because such action or inaction of his was bound to result in financial loss to the appellant irrespective of the quantum.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 555 , in paragraph no. 23 as under: “23. In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh and U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar this Court held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption/ misappropriation, the only punishment is dismissal.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. It was held by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301 , in paragraphs no. 25 and 26 as under: “25. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari this Court held as under: (SCC p. 715, para 4) “4. … In a case of such nature-indeed, in cases involving corruption-there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant.” 26. In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh this Court held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal. Similar view has been reiterated in U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar and U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In NEKRTC v. H. Amaresh this Court held that the punishment should always be proportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. However, in a case of corruption, the only punishment is dismissal. Similar view has been reiterated in U.P. SRTC v. Vinod Kumar and U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. It was held by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rajasthan SRTC v. Bajrang Lal, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 693 , in paragraphs no.21 and 22 as under: “21. As regards the question of disproportionate punishment is concerned, the issue is no more res integra. In U.P. SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma, it was held as under: (SCC p. 561, para 22) “22. In Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh v. Krishnan Behari this Court held as under: (SCC p. 715, para 4) “4. … In a case of such nature-indeed, in cases involving corruption-there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for and opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriation that is relevant.?Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in Ruston & Hornsby (I) Ltd. v. T.B. Kadam, U.P. SRTC v. Basudeo Chaudhary, Janatha Bazar (South Kanara Central Coop. Wholesale Stores Ltd.) v. Sahakari Noukarara Sangha, Karnataka SRTC v. B.S. Hullikatti and Rajasthan SRTC v. Ghanshyam Sharma.” 22. In view of the above, the contention raised on behalf of the respondent employee, that the punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the delinquency is not worth acceptance. The only punishment in case of the proved case of corruption is dismissal from service.” (Emphasis supplied) 9. In view of the aforesaid decisions when illegal gratification is demanded by a person from the disciplined force the punishment of dismissal cannot be said to be shockingly disproportionate. Hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition preferred by this appellant. The case of this appellant is different from the case of other two delinquents who have also been punished, but differently by the disciplinary authority. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons, and judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal as no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) no. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons, and judicial pronouncements, there is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal as no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while dismissing W.P.(S) no. 4298 of 2003 vide judgment and order dated 9th April, 2010, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal is, hereby, dismissed. 11. All the interlocutory applications are hereby dismissed in view of the final order passed in this Letters Patent Appeal. L.P.A. dismissed.