Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 358 (GAU)

Ashyut Kalita v. State of Assam

2021-04-13

SONGKHUPCHUNG SERTO

body2021
JUDGMENT : Songkhupchung Serto, J. 1. Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. D. Doley, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents. 2. While the petitioner was posted at 8th Assam Police Battalion situated at Abhayapuri as ABSI, the respondent No. 4 who was the Commandant of the Battalion, issued an order vide Memo No. Bn.8/Acctt/2014/563-66, dated 26.03.2014 by which 8 (eight) personnel of the battalion including the petitioner were entrusted with the job of preparing the pending D.A arrear bills of the personnel of the battalion for the period 01.01.1998 to 31.05.2001 and 01.07.2002 to 31.05.2005 for which sanctioned was accorded by the Government vide order No. HMA.2/2014/16-A, dated 05.03.2014. As per the order the personnel entrusted with the job mentioned above were directed to work under the supervision of one Sri. Rasaraj Bhattacharjee, Head Assistant of the unit and they were also given the responsibility of scrutinizing the bank account numbers and bill amounts of the personnel including those who have retired from service or transferred from the unit or expired etc. 3. When the process for preparing and disbursement of the arrears of the D.A was going on the Commandant of the Battalion (respondent No. 4) received a complaint on 23.04.2014 which alleged that there was misappropriation of the D.A arrears. Based on the information he issued an order dated 28.04.2014 by which the petitioner and all his colleagues who were entrusted with the responsibilities mentioned above were placed under suspension. After the suspension order was issued the Commandant issued a show cause notice dated 08.08.2014 along with statement of allegations to all of them. In the show cause notice they were also asked to submit their written statements. The charge against the petitioner was as follows; "The above named team including you, along with ABSI Moyezuddin Mondal and Cook Pradip Kalita entered into a unholy nexus and intentionally had not collected many account numbers of the person who were eligible for the payment and manipulated the records in the hard copy as well as in the soft copy and thereafter, entered therein your personal account number, account numbers of your friends and relatives with an ulterior motive to grab Government money and thereby deprived the genuine employees of this organization/employees transferred to other unit/pensioner from their due. (2) Again, the Government sanction order against the above estimated bills received by this office on 11.03.2014 but put up the same before the Commandant on 25.03.2014. Hence, you along with others whose names are given above intentionally delayed the matter to grab the D.A Arrear amounts of the person who have either died, retired or transferred from this Battalion or those force personal who had died during service or after retirement. (3) Moreover, in spite of repeated instruction from this office to collect the bank account numbers of the eligible force personnel of DA Arrear, whose bank account numbers are not available in the office records, you have not sent a single WT Message to the concerned Officers, intentionally so that you along with other to succeed in your evil intention. (4) Before submission of final bill to the Treasury the undersigned has directed (i) Head Assistant Shri. Rasaraj Bhattarcharjee (U/S) (ii) Shri Suresh Ray (U/S), Sr. Assistant and you to verify the Bank account numbers of the personnel of 8th A.P. Battalion from the records, the bank account of force personnel who have been transferred/retired from this unit from their concerned offices and put up before the undersigned. Shri Suresh Ray (U/S), Sr. Assistant signed each page of the Bank list as verified. After that, a team lead by you entered into a conspiracy to grab the Government money and manipulated documents signed by me including soft copies (C.D) which was dispatched to the Abhayapuri Sub-Treasury and State Bank of India, Abhyapuri Branch for payment. (5) During enquiry, it is found that a total an amount of Rs. 3,15,370/- was deposited to your personal accounts and accounts of your wife and nephew. The break up is as follows; Rs. 68,677/- (Sixty eight thousand six hundred seventy seven) only was deposited in your personnel account vide SBI A/C No. 11446186598, an amount of Rs. 2,17,372/- (Two lac seventeen thousand three hundred seventy two) only was deposited in the name of Shri. Durgeswar Kalita (your nephew) vide SBI A/C No. 31071023649 and an amount of Rs. 29,321/- (Twenty nine thousand three hundred twenty one) only was deposited in the name of your wife Smti. Babita Kalita vide SBI A/C No. 30251508752. However this is not final amount and may increase during the course of enquiry. 29,321/- (Twenty nine thousand three hundred twenty one) only was deposited in the name of your wife Smti. Babita Kalita vide SBI A/C No. 30251508752. However this is not final amount and may increase during the course of enquiry. (6) During enquiry, it is also found that for you and your team negligence an amount of Rs. 17,89,213/- was wrongly paid to the Bn. personnel who were not eligible for getting DA Arrear for the said period. Again an amount of Rs. 2,44,288/- paid without following any proper procedures, to the relatives/guardians of the Battalion personnel who has died during service or after retirement. (7) Till this stage of enquiry a huge amount which was meant for force personnel is misappropriated by you and others. Further you admitted your guilt in writing and submitted a prayer to the Commandant 8th A.P. Battalion to exonerate you from the intentional act done by you and refunded misappropriated amount detected till this stage of enquiry. The amount diverted from D.A Arrear account to your personal Account which clearly proves your involvement in the conspiracy. An amount (Rs.3,15,370/-) debited to your personal account/from accounts of your relatives and friends for D.A arrear. Your above act tantamount to misconduct/negligence of duty rendering you liable for punishment as per procedure of law. Hence you are therefore charged accordingly." 4. As per the direction, the petitioner submitted his written statement on 25.08.2014 and in that he had stated that he was mainly engaged in Q.M Branch for submission of bills of the personal to the Treasury and the SBI and he was in no way engaged in the account branch. However, as far as the Charge No. 1 & 2 are concerned he admitted the same. Regarding the Charge No. 3, the petitioner denied that he entered into any unholy nexus with his colleagues and it was the sole responsibility of the account branch to collect the account numbers of personnels eligible for payment and the computer section was responsible for preparation of the bills. He also stated that for those personal who have been transferred to other units or retired from service or expired, their account numbers were not maintained in the record or recorded in the computer. He further mentioned that the bank accounts of most of the transferred personal, retired personnel and death personnel of the battalion had been found dormant or discontinued. He further mentioned that the bank accounts of most of the transferred personal, retired personnel and death personnel of the battalion had been found dormant or discontinued. Therefore, during the scrutiny of the bills from the soft copy (CD), in the night of 31.03.2014 at about 11:30 P.M at the SBI Abhayapuri Branch, some anomalies were found regarding the bank account numbers of such personnel. As such, the bank agreed to deposit only Rs. 22,88,724/- (Rupees Twenty lakhs eighty eight thousand seven hundred and twenty four) out of the total amount of Rs. 78,01,318/- (Rupees Seventy eight lakh one thousand and three hundred eighteen). But since the remaining amount will have to be surrendered or lapsed at 12:00 clock of that night he rushed back to the headquarter with the soft copy and asked the computer branch to enter the personal bank account numbers of trusted officials in the soft copy to save the situation so that they would be able to disburse the D.A arrears to the personal who are entitled. In that process his personal account number and some of the account numbers of his family members were given in good faith to save the situation. Therefore, he had no ulterior motive to grab the Government money by depriving the genuinely entitled personnel of the battalion. Regarding the rest of the charges, the answer of the petitioner as given in that written statement are reproduced here below; "Regarding Para No. 4 of the statement of allegation, it may respectfully be stated here that Government sanction order has been received and the same was endorsed to the C.A on 11.03.2014 by the 2 i/c of the BN. and later on it was put up before your honour on 25.03.2014 by the Account Branch. This fact of receiving the Govt. order is neither known to me nor I have dealt with the same and I am fully ignorant about this. Hence, it is not the fact that intentionally I have delayed the matter to grab the D.A Arrear amounts of the force personnel as alleged in the statement of allegation. Regarding Para No. 5 of the statement of allegation I beg to state that from my own effort I collect some bank account Nos. Hence, it is not the fact that intentionally I have delayed the matter to grab the D.A Arrear amounts of the force personnel as alleged in the statement of allegation. Regarding Para No. 5 of the statement of allegation I beg to state that from my own effort I collect some bank account Nos. of the known personnel of the force from different available sources for the D.A arrear and it is a fact that I have not sent any W.T Message from my end as it was the sole responsibilities of the Account Branch to send the message to the concerned Officers from the concerned file of the Account Branch. Hence, it is not the fact that intentionally I have not sent any W.T Message to fulfill my evil intention. Regarding Para No. 6 of the statement of allegation I beg to state that since efforts have been made to verify the Bank Accounts Nos. of the force personnel from the record; but due to the anomalies incorrect recording of account Nos. and non availabilities of correct account Nos. of the transferred, retired and died personnel etc. as narrated in the foregoing Para elaborately in replying the Para Nos. 3 of the statement of allegation, could not be verified and ascertained correctly within the very short period as a result incorrect/defective hard copies including the soft copes (C.D) have been put-up before your honour by the Account Branch which were dispatched to the Sub-Treasury and the SBI Abhayapuri. Hence, it is not the fact that documents have been manipulated and put-up before your honour for your signature to grab the Govt. money by entering into a conspiracy. Para No. 7 of the statement of allegation is admitted for entering of amount Rs. 3,15,370/- into my personnel account and my relatives as per forgoing Para while replying the Para No. 3 of the statement of Allegation. It may be respectfully stated here that a total amount of Rs. 57,430/- have been paid to the personnel who were due for their D.A arrear vide Annexure-1 enclosed herewith. While realizing the entered amount from my personnel account a total sum of Rs. 5,11,119/- have been deposited vide Money Receipt enclosed as An-nexure-2 with a letter of Authority to deduct Amount from my Salary etc. in case alleged misappropriation is higher than which I refunded vide Annexure-3 enclosed herewith. While realizing the entered amount from my personnel account a total sum of Rs. 5,11,119/- have been deposited vide Money Receipt enclosed as An-nexure-2 with a letter of Authority to deduct Amount from my Salary etc. in case alleged misappropriation is higher than which I refunded vide Annexure-3 enclosed herewith. But as a matter of fact, I have already paid an excess amount of Rs. 2,53,179/- (Rupees two lacks three thousand one hundred and seventy nine) only than the amount entered in my personnel account. Regarding Para No. 8 of the statement of allegation Ibeg to state that the amount meant for force personnel so diverted to my personnel account was not for misappropriating the same, the circumstance of which has already been explained in the foregoing' Paras of my reply. It may be respectfully stated here that it was not due to the negligence the amount of Rs. 17,89,213/- wrongly paid to the personnel who were not eligible for the same. It was due to not putting/Recording the Unit Nos. of Constables/LKs against their names as a result 4/5 personnel have been found Under one and the same name for which correct Bank Account Nos. of such personnel could not be ascertained as such either one Bank Account No. or incorrect No. have been entered in the soft copy (C.D) from the record of computer which has been incorrectly recorded in the Computer as narrated earlier. This is the circumstances under which such payment was made. Regarding the payment of Rs. 2,44,288/-. I beg to state that the said amount was paid to the Next heirs of the deceased personnel. Further I beg to state, that I have no evil intention to grab the Govt. money as alleged and the act so done was in good faith so as to save the Govt. sanction to be lapsed/surrendered at the nick honour of the year ending and as such the force personnel were not deprived of their due D.A arrear." 5. During the pendency of the enquiry an FIR was also lodged before the Officer-in-charge of Abhayapuri P.S on 29.05.2015. On received of the complaint, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station registered the Abhayapuri P.S Case No. 159/2015, under section 120(B)/468/471/406/409/420/34 of IPC. During the investigation, the petitioner was made to pay a sum of Rs.5,11,119/- (Rupees Five lakh eleven thousand one hundred and nineteen) against the sum of Rs. On received of the complaint, the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station registered the Abhayapuri P.S Case No. 159/2015, under section 120(B)/468/471/406/409/420/34 of IPC. During the investigation, the petitioner was made to pay a sum of Rs.5,11,119/- (Rupees Five lakh eleven thousand one hundred and nineteen) against the sum of Rs. 3,15,370/- (Rupees three lakh fifteen thousand three hundred and seventy) which was deposited in his account and in the accounts of his wife and nephew from the D.A arrears of the personnel of the 8th Assam Police Battalion. In the meanwhile, the Departmental enquiry was completed and the enquiry report was submitted to the respondent No. 4 on 16.09.2018. In the report, it was stated that the charge against the petitioner has been found to be true. On received of the same, the respondent No. 4 issued the show cause notice dated 16.09.2015 asking the petitioner to submit written representation within 7(seven) days on the punishment intended to be inflicted. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his representation on 28.09.2015 basically reiterating what he had stated in response to the first show cause notice and praying for exonerating him from all the charges. However, on 27.09.2015 i.e. one day before the petitioner submitted his representation, the respondent No. 4 issued the order dated 27.09.2015 (impugned herein) removing the former from service by holding that, the charge against him are proof. Being aggrieved by the order of removal from service, the petitioner submitted an appeal to the respondent No. 3 on 12.10.2015 under Rule-15 of the Assam Services (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1964. The appellate authority vide order dated 30.12.2015 upheld the finding and decision of the disciplinary authority dated 27.09.2015. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by filing this writ petition praying for quashing and setting aside of the two impugned orders. 6. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as far as the facts regarding the depositing of Rs. Being aggrieved, the petitioner is before this Court by filing this writ petition praying for quashing and setting aside of the two impugned orders. 6. Mr. U.K. Nair, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as far as the facts regarding the depositing of Rs. 3,15,370/- to the account of the petitioner, his wife and nephew are concerned, it is admitted by the petitioner but the intention was not to misappropriate the same for his personal gain but to save the sanction amount from being returned to the Government due to lapse of financial year at 12 midnight on 31.3.2019 which would mean waiting again for a long time for the personnel of 8th Assam Battalion to get their arrears of D.A. 6.1. In elaboration of his submission, Mr. Nair further submitted that in the night of 31.3.2019 at about 11 PM, when the petitioner and his team were finalizing everything for depositing or transferring arrears of DA of the personnels of the battalion it was found that some of the bank account numbers of the personnel specially who have retired, died and transferred were either dormant or no longer operative therefore, the bank officials refused to deposit or transfer the DA arrears entitlement of those persons into their accounts. Having no choice, the petitioner and his team, in order to save the fund from being lapse at 12 O'clock midnight of the same day decided to deposit the amounts in the account of trustworthy officials of the battalion and while doing so, the petitioner also as alleged, transferred or deposited a sum of Rs. 3,15,370/- into his account and to the account of his wife and nephew. But all these was done with the intention to hand over the money to the personnel who were entitled to get DA arrears in time. Therefore, the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority in holding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and inflicting him with the punishment of removal from service is illegal, unreasonable and disproportionate. 6.2. Mr. Nair also submitted that, assuming that the petitioner is guilty of the charges leveled against him, even then, the punishment inflicted on him is disproportionate and discriminatory. 6.2. Mr. Nair also submitted that, assuming that the petitioner is guilty of the charges leveled against him, even then, the punishment inflicted on him is disproportionate and discriminatory. The learned counsel also contended that since the actions taken by the petitioner and his team were not with ill intention to gain something at the cost of some people but, only to help those people who were entitled to receive D.A arrears, it would at best amount to irregularity or violation of standard Official proceedings. Therefore, the punishment of removal from service is too harsh and unreasonable. On his contention that the quantum of punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is discriminatory, the learned senior counsel submitted that, Mr. Rasaraj Bhattacharjee under whose supervision the whole team were directed to work and actually worked for the assignment given and who was found to have deposited a sum of Rs. 2,76,055/- in his account was only reprimanded for his misconduct and he was given all the retirement benefits when he retired whereas, the petitioner who was only a part of the team was inflicted with such severe punishment. 6.3. The learned senior counsel further referred to the case of other co-delinquents. For easy reference the cases of other delinquents are given in the table form here below; 7. By referring to the above table, the learned senior counsel submitted that in the case of Moyezuddin Mondal, Sankardev Sutradhar & Pradip Kalita, the amount alleged to have been misappropriated are much larger than the amount alleged to have been misappropriated by the petitioner. However, all the 3 (three) co-accused have been re-instated in service whereas the petitioner has been inflicted with punishment of removal from service. Therefore, the action of the Disciplinary Authority and the order of the Appellate Authority upholding the action of the Disciplinary Authority is discriminatory. Thus, interference of this Court is called for. 7.1. In support of his submission, the learned senior counsel relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Director General of Police & Ors. Vs. G. Dasayan, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 407 . The relevant paragraphs relied upon are paragraphs 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and they are reproduced here below; "4. The respondent was tried along with one Head Constable and two Police Constables. Regular enquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Vs. G. Dasayan, reported in (1998) 2 SCC 407 . The relevant paragraphs relied upon are paragraphs 4, 8, 9, 10 and 11 and they are reproduced here below; "4. The respondent was tried along with one Head Constable and two Police Constables. Regular enquiry was held by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thuckalay (Kanyakumari District), who found that the first count of the charge had been proved but not the second one. In the meanwhile, the respondent was transferred to Tirunelveli District. The other co-delinquents were also transferred to another neighbouring district. The Disciplinary Authority for the respondent, at the relevant time, was the Superintendent of Police, Tirunelveli, who concurred with the Report of the Enquiry Officer and imposed the punishment of dismissal from service by an order dated 21.04.1987. The appeal filed by the respondent to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Tirunelveli, was dismissed on 09.12.1987. The review filed to the Director General of Police was also rejected on 05.02.1990." "8. On the second ground that the Superintendent of Policy, Tirunelveli District, was not the competent authority, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal was not right in assuming that the transfer was for administrative purpose and during the pendency of Enquiry as the Police Standing Orders enabled the transfer of Constable of one District to another District. The relevant PSO was produced which reads that a Police Constable is liable to serve anywhere in the State. The order of transfer from Kanyakumari District to Tirunvelveli District at the relevant time was not challenged. Therefore, this ground of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of dismissal cannot also be supported. The third ground that the co-delinquents except the Head Constable were let off though the charges were identical, it is stated by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Disciplinary Authority did not agree with the findings of the Enquiry officer so far as those two delinquents were concerned. However, the Head Constable, Who was also charged along with the respondent, was compulsorily retired by the Disciplinary Authority. 9. Mr. However, the Head Constable, Who was also charged along with the respondent, was compulsorily retired by the Disciplinary Authority. 9. Mr. Murlidhar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, while agreeing with the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants on the first two grounds, submitted that the order of dismissal at any rate cannot be sustained and if at all an order of compulsory retirement as was made in the case of the Head Constable, who was tried along with the respondent, has to be imposed. 10. We have perused the order of the Tribunal and the relevant documents. We find merit in the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. At the same time, were are of the view that as pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent that a punishment of compulsory retirement in the case of the respondent as well would meet the ends of justice on the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Tribunal and in the place of order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the order of compulsory retirement is substituted. The appeal will stand disposed of accordingly with no order no order as to costs." 7.2. Mr. Nair also relied on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 . The paragraphs of the judgment on which reliance was placed are paragraphs; 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. The contents of the paragraphs are given here below; "8. We have gone through the inquiry report placed before us in respect of the appellant as well as Constable Arjun Pathak. The inquiry clearly reveals the role of Arjun Pathak. It was Arjun Pathak who had demanded and received the money, though the tacit approval of the appellant was proved in the inquiry. The charge levelled against Arjun Pathak was more serious than the one charged against the appellant. Both the appellants and other two persons as well as Arjun Pathak were involved in the same incident. After having found that Arjun Pathak had a more serious role and, in fact, it was he who had demanded and received the money, he was inflicted comparatively a lighter punishment. Both the appellants and other two persons as well as Arjun Pathak were involved in the same incident. After having found that Arjun Pathak had a more serious role and, in fact, it was he who had demanded and received the money, he was inflicted comparatively a lighter punishment. At the same time, the appellant who had played a passive role was inflicted with a more serious punishment of dismissal from service which, in our view, cannot be sustained. 9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents had also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences. 10. The principle stated above is seen applied in a few judgments of this Court. The earliest one is DG of Police v. G. Dasayan wherein one Dasayan, a police constable, along with two other constables and one Head Constable were charged for the same acts of misconduct. The disciplinary authority exonerated two other constables, but imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on Dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on the Head Constable. This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of the order of dismissal from service on Dasayan, applying the principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents. This Court held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. In Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah case the workman was dismissed from service for proved misconduct. However, few other workmen, against whom there were identical allegations, were allowed to avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme. In such circumstances, this Court directed that the workman also be treated on the same footing and be given the benefit of voluntary retirement from service from the month on which the others were given the benefit. 12. However, few other workmen, against whom there were identical allegations, were allowed to avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme. In such circumstances, this Court directed that the workman also be treated on the same footing and be given the benefit of voluntary retirement from service from the month on which the others were given the benefit. 12. We are of the view that the principle laid down in the above mentioned judgments would also apply to the facts of the present case. We have already indicated that the action of the disciplinary authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment on the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment on the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. The appellant is, therefore, to be reinstated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was reinstated and be given all consequential benefits as were given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs." 8. Mr. D. Doley, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State respondents submitted that if the acts of delinquents including the petitioner was only to prevent lapse of the fund sanctioned for payment of the D.A arrears due to the ending of the financial year at 12 O'clock midnight of 31.03.2019 the same is not justified, because the Government could have taken appropriate action for making payment of the DA arrear in the next financial year. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that all the actions taken by him and his team was to facilitate early payment of D.A arrears of the personnel of 8th Assam Police battalion is a lame excuse and only an attempt to justify the illegal acts. The learned Government further submitted that the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is as per the law and very much reasonable, therefore, it calls for no interference. Lastly, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner was the kingpin in the whole operation, therefore he deserved a harsher punishment and accordingly he was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service. 9. Lastly, the learned Government Advocate submitted that the petitioner was the kingpin in the whole operation, therefore he deserved a harsher punishment and accordingly he was inflicted with the punishment of removal from service. 9. I have gone through the enquiry proceedings including the statement of the witnesses produced in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner. All the statements of the witnesses shows that the sum of Rs. 3,15,370/- was deposited in the account of the petitioner, his wife and nephew. In fact there is no denial to this fact from the side of the petitioner therefore, the act of misconduct and violation of the official norms prescribed for such process is writ large on the face of the record. The only way for the petitioner to show that he had no ill intention to misappropriate the money for his gain was by proving his good intention. But none of the statements given by the witnesses reveals or proves the same. Therefore, I am of the opinion that as far as the charges against the petitioner are concerned it needs no further discussion and there is no ground or reason to interfere with the findings of the enquiry officer which was approved by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. However, on the second plea of the petitioner that, he has been inflicted with a harsher punishment while the other co-accused have been either given lighter punishment or completely let off without any punishment though the charges leveled against him and them are all the same, I am of the view that he has a case. It appears from the record and from the submissions of the learned counsels that all the team members/co-delinquents were equally involved in the commission of the act or acts which led to the transfer of the amount of money meant for payment of DA arrears to their respective accounts and the accounts of others who are near and dear to them. There is nothing in the record which shows the role of the petitioner so pivotal amongst all the acts committed by the other members of the team/co-delinquents. There is nothing in the record which shows the role of the petitioner so pivotal amongst all the acts committed by the other members of the team/co-delinquents. In fact from the order dated 26.03.2014 by which all the accused persons/co-delinquent were entrusted with the work it can be seen that Rasaraj Bhattacharjee, Head Assistant of the unit was to be head of the team and all the others were to work under his supervision. But as submitted by Mr. Nair, Mr. Rasaraj Bhattacharjee was set free only with severe reprimand and at the time of his retirement he was given all retirement benefits. Further, in the case of Moyezuddin Mondal in whose account a sum of Rs. 82,13,300/- was transferred he was reinstated in service. In the case of others also like, Ashok Kumar Borah as given in the table above he was removed from service but was reinstated by the Appellate Authority and in the case of Suresh Ray Senior Assistant whose name is also given in the table given above, he was given compulsory retirement. From these facts which are not disputed what one can conclude without any hesitation is that there has been discriminatory treatment between the persons who are similarly situated. The discrimination amongst similarly situated persons in any form is illegal and unconstitutional as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the two cases referred to by the learned counsel of the petitioner. In the first case i.e. Director General of Police & Ors. Vs. G. Dasayan, the respondent therein was a police constable in Kanyakumari. A Departmental enquiry was proceeded against him for the following charges; "(i) Highly reprehensible conduct in having demanded and extracted gold jewels weighing 31 grams from one T. Pitchandi Asari, Thangam Jewellers, Alexendria Press Road, Nagercoil, under Coersion on 218.5.1983 with other members of Crime Detective Party. (ii) In having not issued with any receipt to the said T. Pitchandi Asari, or in not having seized the said jewels under proper mahazar and; and (iii) In not having showed the jewels in any of the crimes investigated by the Crime Detective party. II. (ii) In having not issued with any receipt to the said T. Pitchandi Asari, or in not having seized the said jewels under proper mahazar and; and (iii) In not having showed the jewels in any of the crimes investigated by the Crime Detective party. II. Highly reprehensible conduct as a member of the Crime Detective Party: (i) In not having shown the arrest of one Henry Victor and Shahul Hameed concerned in CCS No. 257 of 1983 under Section 457/380 IPC which was registered on 12.5.1983 on the complaint of T. Dennison and keeping the accused for a number of days without any record. (ii) In having not recovered the property under proper mahazar and not properly accounted for the cloth and money recovered from various places in Tamil Nadu. (iii) In having charged the actual properties recovered in Cr. No. 257 of 1983 under Section 457, 380 IPC by changing the high quality cloth into cheaper quality cloth while sending them in Form 95 to the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagercoil, the receipt of which was acknowledged on 22.7.1983 in RP No. 490 of 1983." He was tried along with one Head Constable and two Police Constable. The Disciplinary Authority for the respondent at the relevant time was Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli. The Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli concurred with the report of the Enquiry Officer and the respondent was dismissed from service by order dt. 21.4.1987. He filed an appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police Tirunelveli but the same was dismissed on 09.12.1987. Thereafter, a review petition was filed before the Director General of Police which was also rejected on 05.02.1990. The respondent moved the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal at Madra by filing O.A. No. 446 of 1991. The Tribunal by order dated 06.05.1996 set aside the order of dismissal mainly on the ground that enquiry report was not furnished to the respondent before the impugned order was passed and that, the authority competent to pass the order of dismissal was the Superintendent of Police Kanyakumari district and not Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli. The Tribunal by order dated 06.05.1996 set aside the order of dismissal mainly on the ground that enquiry report was not furnished to the respondent before the impugned order was passed and that, the authority competent to pass the order of dismissal was the Superintendent of Police Kanyakumari district and not Superintendent of Police Tirunelveli. The other ground (which is relevant for this case) on which the Tribunal set aside the order of dismissal was that the co-delinquents were let off without any punishment except the Head Constable who was compulsorily retired though the charges against all of them were identical and therefore, it is discriminatory against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Director General of Police filed an appeal by special leave before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that punishment of compulsory retirement in the case of the respondent (the writ petitioner before the High Court) as well would meet the ends of justice under the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. In the second case, the appellant therein who was a Police Constable, while working in the Police Station Rahatgargh in Sagar district, along with one ASI Lakhan Tiwari and Head Constable Jagdish Prasad Tiwari were charged for not implicating certain persons involved in the Crime No. 4 of 2002, registered in the said police station in exchange for a sum of Rs. 3000 received by one of them i.e. Jagdish Prasad Tiwari. An enquiry was conducted by the Additional Superintendent of Police Sagar. At the end of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found Lakhan Tiwari not guilty of the charges but for Rajendra Prasad Yadav it was recorded as follows:- "Against Delinquent 2, HC No. 1104 Rajendra Prasad, one of the charges imputed could not be proved for want of evidence. During the course of departmental enquiry, the inquiry officer has noted that Charge 2 was also not proved from the statement of the prosecution witness and documents of the prosecution but one cannot deny the participation of the delinquent and his tacit approval." However, the Superintendent of Police Sagar disagreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that charge 2(two) as against the appellant was also found to be proved. Accordingly, a supplementary charge-sheet was also given to the appellant and later a final order was passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police which stated as follows; "With respect to the delinquent HC No. 1104 Rajendra Yadav, the inquiry officer has stated vide his said letter that the delinquent HC was present in the police station during the report of Crime No. 4 of 2002. As per the evidence, the money was demanded by Constable Arjun Pathak. The report has been recorded by HC No. 1104 Rajendra Yadav whereas Rs. 3,000 was paid to Constable Arjun Pathak. Therefore, with regard to receiving money, the participation of HC Rajendra Yadav and his tacit approval are proved with respect to Charge 2. At the same time, he could not exercise his control over his subordinate. The money was demanded by Arjun Pathak and upon receipt of money by Arjun Pathak, HC No. 1104 Rajendra Yadav lodged the report. Therefore, I am in disagreement with the view of the inquiry officer given, in the inquiry report of the departmental enquiry that the charge is not proved against the delinquent HC Rajendra Prasad Yadav. As per the remark of the inquiry officer, the above-mentioned Charge 2 imputed against HC No. 1104 Rajendra Prasad is found to be proved." On the basis of the findings Lakhan Tiwari was demoted for 3 years from the post of ASI to Head Constable but the appellant and the other delinquent Jagdish Prasad were dismissed from service. Aggrieved by the dismissal order an appeal was preferred before the Inspector general of Police who dismissed the same on 09.12.2004. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh which was also dismissed by the order dated 03.05.2007. Against the order of dismissal a writ appeal was filed but the same was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the same High Court on 06.09.2011. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by an appeal through special leave. In the appeal before the Supreme Court it was contended by the learned counsel of the appellant that the fact that a sum of Rs. 3000/- was demanded by Arjun Pathak was proved but he was reinstated from compulsory retirement by imposing punishment of reduction of increment with cumulative effect for one year only whereas the appellant has been given harsher punishment. 3000/- was demanded by Arjun Pathak was proved but he was reinstated from compulsory retirement by imposing punishment of reduction of increment with cumulative effect for one year only whereas the appellant has been given harsher punishment. Therefore, the order is arbitrary and discriminatory. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, after taking note of the facts submitted by the appellant's counsel held that the doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed, even among persons who are found guilty, and the persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment. The Hon'ble Supreme Court also held that parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is imposed. In fact the Supreme Court also referred to the first case already referred to above. The Court also referred to the case of Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah and came to the conclusion that the principles followed in those two cases would also apply in that case and held that the action of the Disciplinary Authority in imposing a comparatively lighter punishment on co-delinquent Arjun Pathak while imposing harsher punishment on the appellant cannot be permitted in law since they were all involved in the same incident. Accordingly, the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant was set aside and his reinstatement forthwith was directed. 11. From the facts and circumstances which are in the record, it appears that there is nothing which would distinguish the acts of the delinquents from one another. The only difference is on the amount of money deposited in their accounts or accounts of their near and dear ones. Therefore, keeping in view the principle of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the view that while holding the petitioner delinquent guilty of the offence he should be given the same treatment as those who were found to have been guilty and punished. By looking at the table given in the preceding paragraph one would find that Sureeh Ray Senior Assistant whose name is given at Sl. No. 4 and who was alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,67,680/- was given the punishment of compulsory retirement with full pension benefits. The petitioner in this case was also found to have misappropriated or deposited a similar amount of money in his account and account of his wife and son. No. 4 and who was alleged to have misappropriated a sum of Rs. 3,67,680/- was given the punishment of compulsory retirement with full pension benefits. The petitioner in this case was also found to have misappropriated or deposited a similar amount of money in his account and account of his wife and son. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the same punishment is given to him. Accordingly, the impugned orders are not interfered with but the quantum and nature of punishment is modified to compulsory retirement with full pension benefits. The writ petition is disposed of.