JUDGMENT Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. - This is one more of the perennial disputes inter se employer and employee qua dismissal of the employee (petitioner herein) from service. Resultantly, the petitioner knocked the door of erstwhile Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (now stands abolished), by filing the extant petition, so the petition stood transferred to this Court. In nitty-gritty, the petitioner, by medium of the present writ petition, is seeking the following substantive reliefs: "(i) That the impugned orders contained in Annexures P-1, P-2, P-3 may kindly be quashed and set-aside as the respondents have reinstated the similar situated person, vide Annexure P-9 with the stoppage of five increments but in the case of the applicant different yardstick has been adopted. (ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate back in service to the applicant after setting-aside the penalty of dismissal. 2. Tersely, the facts, emanating from the extant writ petition, are that on 28.04.2010 D.F.O., Theog, constituted a team to probe into a complaint, qua illicit felling of trees. Ensuant to the constitution of a team, on 29.04.2010, R.O., accompanied by other members of the team reached Kalbog, and directed Shri Giteshwar Singh, the then B.O., Shri Mohan Lal and Shri Prakash Chand, Forest Guards to accompany him for forest checking on 30.04.2010. Ultimately, on 03.05.2010 R.O. submitted its inquiry report, wherein, it is stated that in the morning of 30.04.2010 Shri Giteshwar Singh, B.O., Shri Mohan Lal and Shri Prakash Chand, Forest Guards consumed liquor, and did not join the forest checking. The petitioner, being the Forest Guard, posted at Kalbog, Block Gohach, Forest Range Kotkhai, Forest Division Theog, joined the R.O. for forest checking and during the checking only stumps were recovered, whereas, neither the timber was seen nor recovered. Surprisingly, on 04.05.2010, the petitioner was suspended, fixing his headquarter at Kotkhai, and a letter/complaint was sent to S.P. SV &ACB, Shimla, consequent thereto a case was registered and the petitioner was arrested. Later on, a common charge-sheet was issued on 22.06.2010 to the petitioner and to Shri Giteshwar Singh, B.O.. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, respondent No. 3 (Conservator of Forests, Shimla), through order dated 19.03.2011, dismissed both the delinquents. Later on, a common charge-sheet was issued on 22.06.2010 to the petitioner and to Shri Giteshwar Singh, B.O.. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, respondent No. 3 (Conservator of Forests, Shimla), through order dated 19.03.2011, dismissed both the delinquents. Appeal, laying challenge to the dismissal order(s) were also dismissed, so the petitioner and said Shri Giteshwar Singh, instituted petitions before this Court, wherein, ultimately, the dismissal orders were quashed and set-aside and the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter by allowing the petitioner and Shri Giteshwar Singh to file representations, if any, and conduct denovo inquiry. The respondents were also directed to decide the matter after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and Shri Giteshwar Singh. However, the representation of the petitioner was dismissed and on 03.05.2014the impugned order (Annexure P-1) was passed. Appeal and revision, preferred by the petitioner, against the impugned order, were also dismissed, whereas, dismissal order of Shri Giteshwar Singh, B.O., was upheld by respondent No. 2, but, upon appeal, respondent No. 3 reduced the penalty imposed upon him, viz., from dismissal to withholding of five increments consecutively. Thus, as per the petitioner, the respondents, for the alleged illegal felling of trees, differently treated the petitioner by dismissing him and for the same alleged felling Shri Giteshwar Singh, was reinstated. 3. Subsequently, the petitioner preferred a mercy petition to the Government of H.P., but, nothing happened thereon, so the petitioner approached the erstwhile Tribunal, for redressal of his grievance(s). As per the petitioner, despite explicit order from this High Court to reconsider the matter of the petitioner, providing him opportunity of personal hearing, neither his representation was considered nor denovo inquiry was conducted. He alongwith Shri Giteshwar Singh, was jointly charge-sheeted, a joint inquiry was conducted and lastly, both of them were dismissed, so the cases of the petitioner and Shri Giteshwar Singh are analogous and not severable, however, Shri Giteshwar Singh's penalty was reduced and he was ordered to be reinstated. Thus, the action of the respondents is not within the confines of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner, in addition to the above grounds, also took some ancillary grounds, viz., charge-sheet was shown to be served upon him between 21.06.2010 to 22.07.2010, when he was in Sub-Jail Kaithu, the order of dismissal is also bad, as principles of audi altram partem were not adhered to. The petitioner, in addition to the above grounds, also took some ancillary grounds, viz., charge-sheet was shown to be served upon him between 21.06.2010 to 22.07.2010, when he was in Sub-Jail Kaithu, the order of dismissal is also bad, as principles of audi altram partem were not adhered to. As per the petitioner, recovery of fuse-wire, from the guard-hut, in his absence, was also made a basis for prosecuting the petitioner, whereas, Shri Mohal Lal, Shri Prakash Chand, Forest Guards and Shri Sant Ram, Forest Worker, have their residences abutting to above guard-hut and Shri Giteshwar Singh, B.O. was also having his residence there. It is alleged that impugned order was passed relying upon the statement of Shri Karam Chand, Investigating Officer, who stated that the petitioner confessed the illicit felling, during police remand. As per the petitioner, such a confession, does not create any binding force upon the disciplinary authority, in dismissing him. Lastly, the petitioner has also sought reliefs that the impugned order be quashed and set-aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. 4. Conversely, the respondents, by way of filing an extensive and detailed reply to the extant petition, resisted and denied the claim of the petitioner. Precisely, as per the respondents, upon an inquiry conducted into a complaint, R.O. Kotkhai, found 60 illicit stumps of deodar and Kail, whereupon, a criminal case was registered by State Vigilance & Anti Corruption Bureau, Shimla. Subsequently, a joint committee of Forest and Vigilance Department, inspected the whole forest and found 135 deodar and 29 Kail stumps, which were illicitly fell. In the inquiry report, it has noticeably come, that the petitioner, connived with Shri Giteshwar Singh and illicitly fell the above trees. So, Shri Giteshwar Singh was arrested and while the investigation was being carried, police found 2 (two) kgs of detonator fuse-wire, which was lying in the residence of the petitioner, so a case, under the apt sections was registered against him. It is also contended that three T.D. hammers were recovered from the residence of the petitioner, whereas, he was authorized to have only one. As per the respondents, the petitioner has been convicted in criminal case by this High Court, as he did not take any timely action/cognizance for such a large illicit felling of trees, thereby he caused a loss of Rs.89,62,083/- to the government. As per the respondents, the petitioner has been convicted in criminal case by this High Court, as he did not take any timely action/cognizance for such a large illicit felling of trees, thereby he caused a loss of Rs.89,62,083/- to the government. It is contended that, as there was no new material in the representation submitted by the petitioner, upon the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court, whereby the respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner and conduct denovo inquiry, after hearing him, so the same was rejected. On the other hand, it is contended that a B.O. is Incharge of an entire Block, under whom 4 5 Beats fall and a Forest Guard is solely responsible for the protection of illicit felling in his/her Beat only. The responsibility of Shri Giteshwar Singh, the then B.O. is lesser, than the petitioner, so the penalty imposed upon Shri Giteshwar Singh, B.O., was reduced and the penalty of the petitioner maintained. Lastly, it is prayed that the extant writ petition, being devoid of merits, be dismissed. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. 6. Undisputedly, when the purported felling of trees occurred, the petitioner was posted, as Forest Guard, in the concerned area, whereas other delinquent Shri Giteshwar Singh, was working as B.O. and the area, wherein, purported illicit felling done, was one of his Beats. The petitioner and Shri Giteshwar Singh, were charge-sheeted together and ultimately they were dismissed from service and their consequent appeals were also dismissed. The delinquents approached this High Court, and the learned Single Judge of this Court quashed and set-aside the dismissal order. The relevant portion of the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 4827 of 2012 (Giteshwar Singh's case) is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "15. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, this writ petition succeeds and the same is accordingly allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-2 dated 19.3.2011 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service with immediate effect and impugned order Annexure P-6 dated 31.3.2012 whereby the 2nd respondent while upholding the penalty of removal from service imposed upon the petitioner has rejected the appeal, are quashed and set aside. The respondents shall re-instate the petitioner forthwith on the receipt of the copy of this judgment. The respondents shall re-instate the petitioner forthwith on the receipt of the copy of this judgment. Thereafter, the 3rd respondent being the disciplinary authority shall permit the petitioner to make representation against the inquiry report dated 21.4.2011, Annexure P-4 and after taking into consideration the representation so made by him, pass an appropriate orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made hereinabove in this judgment. The said respondent may place the petitioner under suspension after re-instatement during the pendency of the de-novo inquiry, if so advised." In sequel to the judgment (supra), the writ petition of the petitioner (CWP No. 5669 of 2012, titled Rattan Chand vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others) was decided on 10.01.2013, the operative part of the same reads as under: "4. The issue to the above extent is thus covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in Giteshwar Singh's case. Consequently, the impugned order, Annexure P-13 whereby the petitioner has been dismissed from service, is quashed and set aside. The order Annexure P-15 passed by the appellate authority is also quashed. There shall be a direction to the respondents to re-instate the petitioner forthwith on production of a copy of this judgment and that of in Giteshwar Singh's case, supra. The disciplinary authority, i.e. the 3rd respondent shall permit the petitioner to make representation against the inquiry report, dated 21.4.2011, Annexure P-10 and after taking into consideration the representation, if any, made by him, pass appropriate order in accordance with law and in the light of observations made in Giteshwar Singh's case, supra. The 3rd respondent shall be at liberty to place the petitioner again under suspension till the final action in the matter is taken, if so advised." Now, upon a reading of the above judgments, it is crystal clear that the petitioner herein and Giteshwar Singh were directed to make representations to the respondents, upon which the respondents were directed to reconsider the matter, in the light of the judgment rendered in Giteshwar Singh's case (supra). The learned Single Judge of this Court also quashed and seta side the dismissal orders, the petitioner and Giteshwar Singh were ordered to be forthwith re-instated and lastly the respondents were ordered to place the petitioner and Giteshwar Singh under suspension, after re-instatement, during the pendency of the denovo inquiry, if so advised. 7. The learned Single Judge of this Court also quashed and seta side the dismissal orders, the petitioner and Giteshwar Singh were ordered to be forthwith re-instated and lastly the respondents were ordered to place the petitioner and Giteshwar Singh under suspension, after re-instatement, during the pendency of the denovo inquiry, if so advised. 7. Now, it is discernible from the judgment rendered by this Court in Giteshwar Singh's case (supra) that the impugned dismissal order was quashed and set aside only on anvil that the Inquiry Officer, after conclusion of inquiry, submitted its report to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority, in turn, without forwarding the inquiry report to the delinquents, curtailed their valuable right to submit written representations, if any, and without considering the same, directly imposed penalty of dismissal upon the delinquents. 8. Thus, it is manifestly clear that as the Disciplinary Authority, upon receipt of inquiry report from the Inquiry Officer did not supply copy of the same to the delinquents, enabling them to submit their written representations, if any, and straightforwardly proceeded to pass dismissal order(s). So, only for that glitch in the departmental proceedings, the High Court passed the judgment (supra) whereby the impugned dismissal order(s) were quashed and set-aside and the delinquents were permitted to file representations against the inquiry report. 9. Consequent to the judgments (supra), the respondents supplied inquiry report to the petitioner herein, as is evident from the records, and the petitioner submitted his representation, Annexure P-8 to the respondents, as per the mandate of Rule 15 of CCS (CCA) Rules, which is extracted hereunder for ready reference: "15. Action on the inquiry report (1) The Disciplinary Authority, if it is not itself the Inquiring Authority may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, remit the case to the Inquiring Authority for further inquiry and report and the Inquiring Authority shall thereupon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of Rule 14, as far as may be. [(2) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the report of the inquiry, if any, held by the Disciplinary Authority or where the Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority, a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiring Authority on any article of charge to the Government servant who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days, irrespective of whether the report is favourable or not to the Government servant. [(3)(a) In every case where it is necessary to consult the Commission, the Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded to the Commission for its advice: (i) a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of Inquiring authority on any article of charge; and (ii) comments of Disciplinary Authority on the representation of the government servant on the Inquiry report and disagreement note, if any and all the case records of the inquiry proceedings. (b) The Disciplinary Authority shall forward or cause to be forwarded a copy of the advice of the Commission received under Clause (a) to the Government servant, who shall be required to submit, if he so desires, his written representation or submission to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days on the advice of the Commission. (4) The Disciplinary authority shall consider the representation under sub-rule (2) and/or Clause (b) of sub-rule (3), if any, submitted by the government servant and record its findings before proceeding further in the matter as specified in sub-rules (5) and (6). (5) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty. (5) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (iv) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 16, make an order imposing such penalty. (6) If the disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (v) to (ix) of Rule 11 should be imposed on the Government servant, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the Government servant any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed;] Thus, after the verdicts (supra), rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the respondents furnished inquiry report to the delinquents and the matter was considered afresh. Annexure P-1 makes it copiously clear that every facet of the petitioner's case was examined thoroughly and no contour was left unexamined, thereafter, extensive findings were rendered by respondent No. 3, whereby both the delinquents were found guilty of illicit felling of 164 trees of deodar and kail. As per respondent No. 3, the delinquents, viz., petitioner herein, being Forest Guard and Shri Giteshwar Singh, being B.O. could not detect illicit felling of 164 trees in the area, which was under their territorial jurisdiction, and on joint investigation of a team of Forest and Vigilance Department, after initiation of action by D.F.O. Theog, detected the above illicit felling of trees. Thus, both the delinquents were negligent in performing their official duties and they, at their level, did not take cognizance of illicit felling of trees. 10. It is manifestly clear with the foregoing discussions that both the delinquents were, after reconsideration of the matter afresh, upon the verdicts of the learned Single Judge of this Court, found guilty of purported illicit felling of trees in an area, forest whereof was under their jurisdiction and they were, in every respect, responsible for its protection. 11. 10. It is manifestly clear with the foregoing discussions that both the delinquents were, after reconsideration of the matter afresh, upon the verdicts of the learned Single Judge of this Court, found guilty of purported illicit felling of trees in an area, forest whereof was under their jurisdiction and they were, in every respect, responsible for its protection. 11. Now, the questions, which still survive are that whether the penalty of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner is too harsh and thus not tenable in the eyes of law, the nature of the negligence, as committed by the petitioner, is unforgivable and whether the petitioner can reap benefit of reduction of penalty of dismissal, as imposed upon Shri Giteshwar Singh, to that of withholding of his five increments consecutively? These are few questions which, now, we need to delve into. 12. As all the questions are interwoven, they are answered together. The delinquents were charge-sheeted for being negligent in their official duties and following charges were framed, whereupon the respondents, after an inquiry, dismissed the services of the delinquents: Articles of charges: 1. Gross dereliction and negligence in the discharge of official duties with a dishonest motive. 2. Un-becoming of a Government servant causing a financial loss to Government amounting to Rs. 89,62,083/- due to illicit felling of 164 trees of deodar/kail. Every employee has responsibility towards the official work/duty and the degree/scale of responsibility varies from post to post and work assigned by the employer. This degree/scale of responsibility is a vital factor in measuring the responsibility of an employee towards the assigned work. This Court cannot ignore this critical aspect and hold that the degrees of responsibility of both the delinquents were identical. In fact, degree of responsibility, of course, with other facets of each case, is incalculably valuable for employer and a decisive factor in imposing penalty upon the delinquent employee. Here in the instant case, clearly the degree of responsibility is distinguishable inter se the petitioner and another delinquent Shri Giteshwar Singh. In fact, degree of responsibility, of course, with other facets of each case, is incalculably valuable for employer and a decisive factor in imposing penalty upon the delinquent employee. Here in the instant case, clearly the degree of responsibility is distinguishable inter se the petitioner and another delinquent Shri Giteshwar Singh. At the same time, when the alleged felling occurred, the petitioner was posted as Forest Guard in the concerned area and delinquent Shri Giteshwar Singh was posted as B.O. A Forest Guard has smaller area, which is called Beat, and he is responsible for that area only, whereas, under the jurisdiction/command/control of a B.O. a larger area, having 4-5 Beats, comes, thus he is responsible for that area only. However, mostly, upon the report of Forest Guard of the Beat concerned, B.O. takes action, which, in the instant case, is missing. On the other hand, B.O. has larger area, so, he is not expected to, in a minimum time, cover his entire area. In fact, B.O. is penultimate step in the ladder of hierarchy and his actions are dependent upon the actions/inactions of the Forest Guard concerned. Thus, the degree of responsibility is more on the shoulders of a Forest Guard, as he is expected to visit his area more frequently and report illicit felling, if any, to the higher authorities immediately. At the same time, it cannot be said that B.O. has no responsibility, but, perceptibly he has lesser responsibility, as his actions/inactions are dependent upon the reporting and promptness of concerned Forest Guard, who is expected to physically visit his area more frequently. Therefore, the degree of responsibility, in the instant case is clearly distinguishable and severable inter se both the delinquents. 13. Even otherwise, instant is not a case where only the petitioner, after being jointly charge-sheet alongwith another delinquent, imposed penalty, but present is a case where both the delinquents, after conclusion of inquiry, imposed penalty. Thus, both the delinquents were found guilty of the charges, detailed above, and initially major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed upon them. However, later on, when the matter was reconsidered, upon the verdicts of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the penalty imposed upon delinquent Shri Giteshwar Singh, the then B.O. was reduced from dismissal from service to withholding of five consecutive increments. However, later on, when the matter was reconsidered, upon the verdicts of the learned Single Judge of this Court, the penalty imposed upon delinquent Shri Giteshwar Singh, the then B.O. was reduced from dismissal from service to withholding of five consecutive increments. Now, as held above, the degree of responsibility of both the delinquents is severable and distinguishable and, in fact, the degree of responsibility is higher on the petitioner. It is hard, even to presume that 164 trees of a forest Beat were illicitly cut and the Forest Guard concerned remained unaware and only upon an inspection conducted by a forest and vigilance team such fact was unearthed. So, it is clear that the petitioner committed gross dereliction and negligence in the discharge of his official duties with a dishonest motive, rendering him unbecoming of a Government servant and due to his negligence 164 trees of deodar/kail were illicitly cut, which not only caused financial loss amounting to Rs. 89,62,083/- to the government, but also caused huge environmental loss. Though, another delinquent Shri Giteshwar Singh, the then B.O. was also negligent in performing his duties, however, his degree of responsibility, was lesser, so the reduction of penalty from dismissal from service to withholding of five consecutive increments, is justified. Thus, the petitioner, being more responsible for the illicit felling of 164 trees, thereby committing gross dereliction and negligence in the discharge of his official duties with a dishonest motive, has been imposed desirable and apt penalty of dismissal of service and the same cannot be said to be too harsh. The gross dereliction and negligence by the petitioner, in discharge of his official duties, is unforgivable, as, in any given society, corruption is cancer and it cannot be allowed to grow in an atrocious proportion. In such like cases, clarion call is always required to limit the proportion of spreading cancer of corruption in our society. 14. Last, but not the least, it was the deliberate inaction of the petitioner in performing his official duties, which virtually landed him in a fatal departmental inquiry to his career. In such like cases, clarion call is always required to limit the proportion of spreading cancer of corruption in our society. 14. Last, but not the least, it was the deliberate inaction of the petitioner in performing his official duties, which virtually landed him in a fatal departmental inquiry to his career. Thus, this Court is rather constrained to dismiss the extant petition and it becomes needless to say that the petitioner cannot reap any benefit of reduction of penalty imposed upon other delinquent, Shri Giteshwar Singh, as the petitioner's liability/responsibility was much higher, so the penalty of dismissal from service is rightly imposed upon him by the respondents. 15. Before parting, it is pertinent to mention here that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the Hon'ble Apex Court has acquitted the petitioner from the penal charges, so the present petition be allowed. This argument is perfunctory in nature, as it is settled law that neither criminal proceedings have bearing on the administrative proceedings nor administrative proceedings have any bearing on the criminal proceedings, both these proceedings may run concomitantly, but they cannot influence each other. Thus, the above arguments is not accepted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that even after the verdicts of the learned Single Judge of this Court, no denovo inquiry was conducted. This argument is cursory in nature, as the record clearly reveals that, during reconsideration, no new fact was either highlighted by the petitioner or unearthed, thus, there was no requirement to conduct denovo inquiry. The above argument also fails, as it lacks legal basis. 16. In view of foregoing discussion and considering all the apposite material, which has come on record, we are of the considered opinion that the extant writ petition sans merits, deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed. All pending application(s) shall also stand(s) disposed of.