JUDGMENT Amrita Sinha, J. - The petitioner is an employee (officer) of the Life Insurance Corporation of India, hereinafter referred to as "LIC". He is posted at the Batanagar Satellite Office (SO in short) of LIC. The said SO is manned by only three employees of LIC. There are, however, two other security officers appointed on contractual basis from outside agencies. 2. On 27th February, 2014 the petitioner handed over the office keys to the Branch Manager of the SO and intimated him that he will attend the office at late hours on 28th February, 2014 as he was required to visit the Amtala Branch Office of LIC for some official work. 3. The Manager (personnel) of the Kolkata Metropolitan Divisional Office II of LIC visited the SO in the morning of 28th February 2014 at about 10:40 a.m. for a surprise check. Incidentally, none of the three employees of LIC were present in the office at the time of surprise check. The surprise check revealed that the security staff of the SO had registered the attendance of all the three employees in the Concurrencia Module, even though none of them were present in the office on time. 4. Vide a communication dated 4th March, 2014 the petitioner was advised to submit his explanation as to why his attendance was registered in the Concurrencia Module, using his password, which is a clear violation of the rules of password security. The said act of the petitioner tarnished the image of the Class I officer, by allowing a security staff to register his attendance in the Concurrencia Module, even though the petitioner reached the SO at about 1:05 p.m. 5. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show cause notice and offered his explanation for the delay in arriving at the SO on the said date by a letter dated 10th March, 2014 received by LIC on 12th March, 2014. 6. Being dissatisfied by the explanation forwarded, LIC initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. A charge sheet was issued against him on 24th December, 2014 and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. 7. The Inquiry Officer enquired the matter and furnished his report on 8th May, 2015 wherein he mentioned that after taking into consideration the documentary evidence submitted by the Presenting Officer he came to the conclusion that the charges as enumerated in the charge sheet against the petitioner were not established. 7. The Inquiry Officer enquired the matter and furnished his report on 8th May, 2015 wherein he mentioned that after taking into consideration the documentary evidence submitted by the Presenting Officer he came to the conclusion that the charges as enumerated in the charge sheet against the petitioner were not established. 8. A second show cause notice dated 2nd July, 2015 was issued to the petitioner by a communication dated 10th July, 2015. The Disciplinary Authority intimated the petitioner that he differed from the findings of the Inquiry Officer and upon perusal of the depositions made by the witnesses he found that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been established and proposed to impose the penalty of "reduction of three stages in the timescale of pay as applicable to his cadre". The reply to the show cause notice not being found satisfactory the disciplinary authority on 21st August, 2015, imposed upon the petitioner, the penalty of "reduction by three stages in the timescale of pay applicable to his cadre" in terms of the Regulation 39(1)(d) of the LIC of India (Staff) Regulations, 1960. 9. Both the appeal and the memorial filed by the petitioner challenging the order of the Disciplinary Authority stood rejected. 10. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition praying for necessary relief. 11. It is the specific case of the petitioner that he had handed over the keys of the office to the Branch Manager of the SO in the evening of 27th February, 2014 specifically intimating him that he would attend the branch office of LIC at Amtala in the morning of 28th February, 2014 for official reasons and would attend the SO at late hours. 12. It is the further case of the petitioner that he neither disclosed his security password to any third person nor did he request any third person to record his attendance in the Concurrencia Module in his absence. It has been submitted that apart from him his security password is known to the Branch Manager only and he is not aware as to the source from where his secret password was leaked and made known to the security officer. 13. It has been submitted that apart from him his security password is known to the Branch Manager only and he is not aware as to the source from where his secret password was leaked and made known to the security officer. 13. The petitioner submitted that even though disciplinary proceeding was initiated against all the three officers of LIC for not being present in the SO on time on 28th February, 2014 the punishment imposed upon the three officers are different. The petitioner has been inflicted the most stringent punishment of reduction of pay by three timescales whereas the other two officers have been imposed the punishment of reduction of pay by only one timescale. 14. It has been contended that as the petitioner has specifically denied the charge of sharing his security password with any third party the Disciplinary Authority ought to have made a thorough inquiry to find out the truth as to the person responsible for divulging the secret password. Instead of doing the same the Disciplinary Authority imposed heavy punishment upon the petitioner. 15. The petitioner relies upon the inquiry report of the Inquiry Officer, who after consideration of the detailed depositions made by the parties, came to a categorical finding that the charges levelled against the petitioner was not proved. 16. The petitioner has also raised the issue that the Branch Manager of the SO being accused of the same offence ought not to have been treated as a witness against him. 17. The petitioner has submitted that as he did not reach the SO on time accordingly he did not claim his Meal Coupon which an employee is entitled to receive on account of attending the office on time. The petitioner has tried to highlight that he did not gain anything personally or financially. 18. He further submits that as he was not present in the SO no monetary transaction has been recorded in his favour during the period of his absence. On the contrary, the other two officers, even though were absent, availed the benefit of the Meal Coupon as well as recorded financial transactions in their account. 19. The Disciplinary Authority imposed heavy punishment upon the petitioner but light punishment upon the other two employees only because they admitted their guilt and prayed apology for their misdeeds. 20. On the contrary, the other two officers, even though were absent, availed the benefit of the Meal Coupon as well as recorded financial transactions in their account. 19. The Disciplinary Authority imposed heavy punishment upon the petitioner but light punishment upon the other two employees only because they admitted their guilt and prayed apology for their misdeeds. 20. The petitioner submits that he did not pray for apology as he did not commit any misdeed. Offence being the same, the proportion of punishment in respect of the delinquents should not have been different. 21. The petitioner relies upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of S.P Malhotra vs Punjab National Bank & Ors., (2013) AIR SC 3739 and the decision delivered by a coordinate bench of this court in the matter of Sima Dutta vs Central Bank of India, (2018) 1 CalLJ 659 (Cal) . 22. The petitioner prays for setting aside the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority and the order passed in his memorial petition. 23. The learned advocate representing LIC submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts. It has been submitted that the petitioner did not disclose that he visited the Branch Office at Amtala not for any official work but for his personal work. He further submits that the report of the surprise visit dated 3rd March, 2014 has also not been annexed with the writ petition though the same was provided to the petitioner along with the charge sheet. It has been contented that the petitioner never intimated the Branch Manager of the SO as regards his visit to the Branch Office in the morning of 28th February, 2014. Neither did the petitioner intimate the Branch Manager that he would be late in attending office on the said date. It has been highlighted that the petitioner went to the Branch Office to collect his bill on account of his Leave Travel Concession. Submission of the telephone bill was merely an alibi. 24. The respondents have relied upon a confidential circular of LIC which permits the Disciplinary Authority to disagree with the report and findings of the Inquiry Officer. It has been highlighted that the petitioner went to the Branch Office to collect his bill on account of his Leave Travel Concession. Submission of the telephone bill was merely an alibi. 24. The respondents have relied upon a confidential circular of LIC which permits the Disciplinary Authority to disagree with the report and findings of the Inquiry Officer. According to the respondents, the Inquiry Officer failed to appreciate the evidence and the depositions tendered by the witnesses and accordingly the Disciplinary Authority rightly disagreed with the same. 25. The respondents submit that heavier punishment was imposed upon the petitioner only because he did not pray apology for his misdeed. 26. It has been contended that enough opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend himself. There has been no violation of the principle of natural justice. The disciplinary proceeding was conducted strictly in accordance with law. There is no discrepancy in the disciplinary proceeding. The order impugned is not liable to be interfered by the court. 27. The respondent relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Tamilnadu & Anr. Vs M. Mangayarkarasi and etc., (2018) 15 Scale 892 wherein the court held that the imposition of penalty in disciplinary proceeding lies in the sole domain of the employer. 28. The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 29. Upon hearing the submission made on behalf of both the parties and upon perusal of the materials placed before this court the following emerge: 1) It is admitted that the petitioner handed over the keys of the office to the Branch Manager of SO on 27th February, 2014 in the evening. Though the petitioner states and submits that he verbally intimated the Branch Manager that he would arrive late on 28th February, 2014 as he would visit the Branch Office at Amtala in the morning for official reasons but there is no record to substantiate the same. 2) Records reveal that the petitioner visited the Amtala Branch Office in the morning of 28th February, 2014 and collected the cheque for submission of the telephone bill of the SO, as 28th February, 2014 was the last date for submission of the said bill. The witness also affirmed the statement of the petitioner that he was present in the Branch Office on the morning of 28th February, 2014. The witness also affirmed the statement of the petitioner that he was present in the Branch Office on the morning of 28th February, 2014. 3) The allegation levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet is - not attending regular job at SO for almost first half of the day of 28th February, 2014 on the pretext of visiting Amtala Branch for personal and some official work without any express permission from the Branch-in-Charge of the SO thereby displaying negligence towards duty. The petitioner has also been alleged to have allowed the security guard of the SO to register his attendance at 10:01:34 hours by using his password violating the password security norms for his personal gain. In view of the above act the petitioner has been charged for failing to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and failed to serve LIC honestly and faithfully and acted in a manner prejudicial to good conduct and detrimental to the interest of LIC. Though the petitioner denied sharing his secret password but the security personnel deposed that he gave the attendance of the petitioner upon instructions from him. 4) Admittedly the petitioner did not avail the Meal Coupon for punctual attendance on 28th February, 2014. There is no record to show that the petitioner gained anything on the fateful day by recording his attendance in violation of the password security rules. 5) The Inquiry Officer, after thorough inquiry, found the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against him. 6) Records reveal that even though allegations in respect of all the three employees of LIC are the same the punishment imposed upon the petitioner is the maximum. What falls for consideration before this court is:- (a) Whether different punishments can be meted out to the charge sheeted employees when the allegations against all of them are similar? (b) Whether upon exercise of the power of judicial review the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can examine the parity of treatment meted out to the charge sheeted employees? 30. (b) Whether upon exercise of the power of judicial review the court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can examine the parity of treatment meted out to the charge sheeted employees? 30. The said issue came up for consideration by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of M. Mangayarkarasi (supra) wherein the court observed that in seeking to apply the principles of parity of treatment the High Court manifestly failed to notice that the gravity of misconduct which was established against the appellants was distinct from and of a more serious nature than what was found against the other employees. The nature and extent of dereliction of duties and the consequences of the dereliction are significant matters which can legitimately be borne in mind by the disciplinary authority. The court held that parity could not be applied as there was material distinction in the case of the misconduct alleged against the appellants as compared to the other employees. 31. In the instant case the respondents have categorically admitted that strict punishment was imposed upon the petitioner as he did not pray for apology before the Disciplinary Authority. 32. Here, out of the three employees of LIC the petitioner is a Class I officer and one of the other accused persons is the Branch Manager of the SO and the third is another officer of the SO. The Branch Manager is a senior officer than that of the Class-I officer and his responsibilities are certainly more than that of a regular officer. 33. The petitioner in terms of rank and responsibility lies at a lower footing than that of the Branch Manager. The Branch Manager has been awarded a lesser punishment than that of the petitioner solely because of the reason he admitted his guilt and tendered apology. 34. Imposing lighter punishment on the senior officer and stringent punishment upon the junior officer on the self-same charges is violative of the principles of equality as enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. As all the three officers were charged with the same charges, then the junior officer ought not to be imposed heavier punishment than the senior officer only because the senior officer admitted the guilt. As all the three officers were charged with the same charges, then the junior officer ought not to be imposed heavier punishment than the senior officer only because the senior officer admitted the guilt. Showing remorse and praying apology is definitely a decisive factor in deciding the quantum of punishment to be imposed upon a delinquent employee, but the decision ought to be taken in a rational manner. 35. The consistent stand of the petitioner is that he was late in reporting to duty in the SO solely because he had attended the Branch Office in the morning for official purpose, with expressed permission of the Branch Manager. The visit of the petitioner in the Branch Office, being corroborated by evidence, the reason for attending office in late hours has been reasonably explained by him. The fact that the petitioner went to the Branch Office and collected the telephone bill of the SO for payment, as it was the last date, can be treated as an official work. Though it has been submitted that payment of the bill was an excuse, but nevertheless, the fact, that the petitioner performed the said job is not denied and accordingly the personal work ought not to become the deciding factor for the purpose of imposition of penalty. It is very practical and obvious that an officer having personal work at the place where he was going for official work will finish both the works at the same time and not keep his personal work undone only because he had gone there for official reason. The personal work which has been complained of was making enquiry by the petitioner about his Leave Travel Concessions bills. The same is very much related with his service and it cannot be said that the petitioner visited the Branch Office solely for the purpose of pursuing his LTC bills. Hence, the rationale for imposing punishment for the said charge does not appear to be a convincing one. 36. The issue of imposing punishment lies in the sole domain of the employer is settled law. It is not open for the writ court to re-appreciate evidence. Courts ought not to substitute its own views in place and instead of the penalty order passed by the employer. 36. The issue of imposing punishment lies in the sole domain of the employer is settled law. It is not open for the writ court to re-appreciate evidence. Courts ought not to substitute its own views in place and instead of the penalty order passed by the employer. Only if the punishment imposed shocks the conscience of the court then only it is permissible for the court to interfere with the same. 37. In the instant case the punishment imposed upon the petitioner appears to be shockingly disproportionate in respect of two employees charged with the same offence. In my opinion, the punishment of the petitioner may have been the same as that of his senior officer but ought not to be heavier than him otherwise the same will amount to discrimination and infraction of the doctrine of equality enumerated in the Constitution of India. Higher the post, more is the accountability and heavier the penalty. The rank and status of an employee ought to be taken into consideration at the time of fixing up of responsibility and imposition of penalty. It is only when the senior officers are made answerable for their lapses, the junior officers will fall in line otherwise the departmental proceeding will turn out to be a sheer farce. 38. As there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was expressly directed to visit the Branch Office in the morning of the date of the incident accordingly the petitioner has not been able to disprove the aforesaid charge levelled against him. At the same time, though the petitioner denies divulging his secret password, fact remains that his attendance was recorded in the Module. From the depositions of the security personnel it appears that this is not the first time that attendance has been recorded in the Module, on behalf of the officers, by the security personnel. The same appears to be done quite often. 39. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Sima Dutta (supra) deals with double jeopardy which is not the case here and accordingly the ratio laid down therein will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 40. The same appears to be done quite often. 39. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Sima Dutta (supra) deals with double jeopardy which is not the case here and accordingly the ratio laid down therein will not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 40. The principle of affording a second opportunity to the delinquent officer in the event the Disciplinary Authority disagrees with the finding of the Inquiry Officer as laid down in S.P. Malhotra (supra) has been duly followed in the instant case. 41. In view of the discussions made hereinabove the penalty imposed upon the petitioner is set aside. 42. The matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority for passing necessary order(s) with regard to the penalty to be imposed upon the petitioner, if any, in line with the discussions made hereinabove. The Disciplinary Authority shall pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and shall communicate the same to the petitioner within a fortnight thereafter. 43. W.P No. 23092 (W) of 2017 is disposed of. 44. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties or their advocates on record expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.