ORDER : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sumit Prakash, learned A.C. to S.C. IV for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 31.12.2012 wherein the petitioner has been terminated from the post of police service and also challenged the appellate order dated 23.11.2013. 3. The petitioner was appointed in Jharkhand Armed Police -3, Govindpur, Dhanbad and posted in Bokaro. Charge-sheet dated 03.01.2011 has been issued against the petitioner it is alleged in the charge sheet that the present petitioner was earlier appointed in Jharkhand Armed Police-3 Govindpur, Dhanbad and the petitioner declared as absconder. Pursuant to which the petitioner was suspended. A charge sheet issued to the effect that the petitioner after concealment of the facts that he was earlier appointed in Jharkhand Armed Police-III, Govindpur, Dhanbad has got appointment in Bokaro Police. The petitioner filed his reply to the charge. Departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and the petitioner was provided full opportunity of hearing and the charge against the petitioner has been proved in the departmental proceeding. A second show-cause has been issued against the petitioner which was replied by the petitioner and, thereafter, the impugned order dated 31.12.2012 has been passed whereunder the petitioner has been terminated from the service. Then the petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was also rejected by order dated 23.11.2013. 4. Aggrieved with these two orders, the petitioner preferred this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order only on the ground that the punishment is not proportionate to the charge. He submits that in an identical case, the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad has passed lesser punishment but the present petitioner who is a constable was departmentally prosecuted on the same set of charges. By referring Annexure- S/1 of the rejoinder he submits that in that order, the Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad has inflicted the punishment of withholding of six annual increment. He submits that in view of this, the case of the petitioner is fit to be allowed on the ground of parity in punishment. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others reported in (2009) 15 SCC 620 . He submits that in view of this, the case of the petitioner is fit to be allowed on the ground of parity in punishment. He relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others reported in (2009) 15 SCC 620 . He referred paragraph 20 of the said case which is quoted herein below: “20: One of the tests to be applied while dealing with the question of quantum of punishment would be: would any reasonable employer have imposed such punishment in like circumstances? Obviously, a reasonable employer is expected to take into consideration measure, magnitude and degree of misconduct and all other relevant circumstances and exclude irrelevant matters before imposing punishment.” 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent State submits that the petitioner was provided full opportunity of being heard in the enquiry and there is no illegality so far as the enquiry proceeding is concerned. Being an employee of a disciplinary force it is expected from the petitioner that he will act fairly whereas the petitioner by concealing the facts that earlier he was employed with the Jharkhand Armed Police-III, Govindpur, Dhanbad obtained the employment in the District Police, Bokaro. He further submits that so far as the Annexure-S/1 contained with the rejoinder is concerned, it is distinguishable with the facts that the resignation of that person was accepted prior to selection in the force. Whereas the petitioner applied for resignation after obtaining employment and it was accepted on 26.12.2009. 7. Be that as it may, this Court finds that the resignation of the petitioner has been accepted on 26.12.2009. On the similar circumstances lesser punishment has been inflicted upon another person which is contained in Annexure-S/1 of the rejoinder which is dated 30.11.2011 whereby the punishment of withheld six months annual increment has been imposed which is equivalent to one black mark. 8. In that view of the matter and taking into account the decision of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others (supra), the writ petition succeeds. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority who will pass order afresh in accordance with law. 9. The impugned order is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority who will pass order afresh in accordance with law. 9. With the aforesaid directions and observations, the writ petition stands allowed and disposed of.