ORDER : The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order of punishment of censure dated 26.07.2014,the order dated 05.06.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority rejecting Departmental Appeal of the petitioner and the order dated 27.09.2016 passed by the Reviewing Authority. 2. The facts, in the nutshell, as pleaded in the writ petition are that the petitioner was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police-Chowki Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara in the year 2011. 3. The petitioner was in receipt of a charge-sheet/memo issued to him under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter readas ‘the CCA Rules, 1958’), wherein three charges were levelled against him. 3. The petitioner was in receipt of a charge-sheet/memo issued to him under Rule 17 of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (hereinafter readas ‘the CCA Rules, 1958’), wherein three charges were levelled against him. The charges levelled against the petitioner are quoted hereunder:- ^^vkjksi la[;k 1 %& ifjoknh Jh lwjt ukjk;.k vks>k iq= Jh ca'kh yky vks>k fuoklh dkok dk [ksM+k Fkkuk dksrokyh HkhyokM+k ds ?kj esa fnukad 23-08-2011 dh jkf= dks pksjh gksus dh lwpuk Fkkukf/kdkjh dksrokyh HkhyokM+k }kjk fnukad 24-08-2011 dks lqcg vkidks nh xbZA bl lwpuk ij vki ?kVuk LFky ij x;s] fujh{k.k ?kVuk LFky fd;kA ifjoknh }kjk vkidks ekSds ij ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ is'k dh xbZ rks vkius fjiksVZ Fkkuk dksrokyh ij nsus dks dgk] tcfd fjiksVZ ij vkidks dk;Zokgh iqfyl fy[kdj vfHk;ksx iathc) djkuk pkfg, Fkk tks vki }kjk ugha fd;k x;kA vkjksi la[;k 2 %& ifjoknh Jh lwjt ukjk;.k }kjk pksjh dh fjiksVZ Fkkuk dksrokyh ij fnukad 24-08-2011 dks is'k dh xbZA fjiksVZ ij fnukad 25-08-2011 dks Mh0vks- Jh bdcky gqlSu l0m0fu0 }kjk dk;Zokgh iqfyl vafdr dh tkdj fjiksVZ vkids ikl pkSdh 'kkL=h uxj Hksth xbZA dk;Zokgh iqfyl esa vuqla/kku Jh f'kojkt flag] l0m0fu0 ds ftEes fd;k x;k Fkk] ijUrq ,Q-vkbZ-vkj esa vfHk;ksx la[;k vafdr ugha Fkh vkius vfHk;ksx la[;k vafdr djkus gsrq mDr ,Q0vkbZ0vkj0 dks Fkkuk dksrokyh HkhyokM+k ugah fHktok;k uk gh ;g Kkr fd;k fd vfHk;ksx ntZ gks x;k ;k ugha tcfd ;g vkids {ks= dh ?kVuk Fkh rFkk vkidks vfHk;ksx ntZ djkuk pkfg;s Fkk] vkjksi la[;k 3 %& mDr ifjoknh Jh lwjt ukjk;.k vks>k ds iq= Jh Hkxorh yky }kjk fnukad 26-08-2011 dks mDr pksjh ds ekeys esa 'kh?kz dk;Zokgh djus gsrq iqfyl v/kh{kd] ftyk HkhyokM+k ds dk;kZy; esa mifLFkr gksdj ifjokn iqfyl v/kh{kd HkhyokM+k dks is'k fd;k x;k tks tfj, i=kad 23913 fnukad 26-08-2011 dks Fkkuk dksrokyh HkhyokM+k Hkstk x;kA ifjokn Fkkuk dksrokyh HkhyokM+k ds ifjokn jftLVj esa ikVZ f}rh; Øek¡d 288 fnukad 26-08-2011 dks ntZ fd;k tkdj tkap gsrq vkids ikl iqfyl pkSdh 'kkL=h uxj Hkstk x;kA ;g ifjokn izkIr gksus ij Hkh vkus mDr laca/k esa vfHk;ksx iaftc) ugha djk;kA ftl ij ifjoknh us ?kVuk ds lEcU/k esa U;k;ky; esa bLrxklk is'k fd;k tks /kkjk 156¼3½ Hkk-na-l- izkIr Fkkuk gksus ij vfHk;ksx la[;k 573@2011 /kkjk 457] 380 Hkk-na-la- fnukad 17-11-2011 dks iathc) fd;k x;kA ;g vfHk;ksx ?kVuk ds 3 ekg nsjh ls iathc) gqvk vkids mDr d`R; ds dkj.k ifjoknh ds mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa ds le{k ifjokn is'k djus dks volj feykA ftlls iqfyl foHkkx dh Nfo /kwfey gqbZA^^ 4. The petitioner, after receipt of charge-sheet filed his reply before the Disciplinary Authority and submitted that the allegation levelled in charge No.1 against the petitioner was not proved at all as the incident relating to theft being committed at residence of complainant Suraj Narayan Ojha, had allegedly taken place on 23.08.2011 and information of the same was given to the petitioner by the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara on 24.08.2011. 5. The petitioner explained that the Charge No.1 was in fact for not lodging the FIR by the SHO concerned and the petitioner had no role in lodging the FIR. 6. The petitioner in respect of Charge No.2 had explained that the report relating to the incident of theft was reported by the complainant at Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara on 24.08.2011 and the further investigation was required to be done by the officers, who were responsible and the petitioner being instructed by the SHO had carried out his duty by going to the place of occurrence and as such the petitioner was not responsible in any manner if on a report of the complainant, the SHO or the other person, who was assigned the duty of investigation, did not register the FIR. 7. The petitioner in response to the Charge No.3 also gave his explanation that the duty which was assigned to the SHO as well as the other Police official to conduct the investigation was not carried out by them and as per the provisions contained in Section 154(1) Cr.P.C., the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station could alone register the FIR and since the petitioner was not posted as the SHO at relevant time, he had no role in committing any misconduct, as was alleged of registering the case, after the complaint was filed by the complainant under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., as the matter was routed through complaint and the case was registered on 17.11.2011 and if any delay was caused in registering the case, the petitioner was in no manner connected to such an incident and had no role to play in trashing image of Police. 8. The petitioner has pleaded that after reply was filed by him, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 26.07.2014, without considering the reply filed by the petitioner in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. 9. 8. The petitioner has pleaded that after reply was filed by him, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 26.07.2014, without considering the reply filed by the petitioner in a mechanical manner without due application of mind. 9. The petitioner has pleaded that the Disciplinary Authority has found the petitioner guilty of not registering the FIR and further not giving information to the Higher Officials and these findings were in absence of any charge levelled against the petitioner and as such the Disciplinary Authority traveled beyond the charge levelled against the petitioner. 10. The petitioner has pleaded that after penalty order was passed, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has pleaded that the Appellate Authority has noted down the various submissions and point-wise objection raised by the petitioner i.e. as many as 8 contentions were noted by the Appellate Authority in its order while deciding the appeal, however, appeal of the petitioner has been decided in a cursory manner and the Appellate Authority again reiterated the finding that the petitioner neither made any effort to get the FIR registered nor informed the Higher Authorities about the incident. 11. The petitioner has pleaded that after dismissal of the appeal, he filed a Review Petition before the Reviewing Authority and the same has also been dismissed by impugned order dated 27.09.2016. The petitioner has pleaded that the Reviewing Authority though recorded a finding which was given by the Administrative Department where the petitioner alone was not found responsible in registering the FIR with delay, however, the liability of the SHO concerned was also highlighted by the Administrative Department. 12. The petitioner has pleaded that the Reviewing Authority recorded in its order that other co-delinquent i.e. SHO of the Police Station concerned was punished with censure, however, the same was not to result into any benefit of proving innocence of the petitioner in respect of charges levelled against him. 13. Learned senior counsel Mr.Ajeet Bhandari, assisted by Mr.Namo Narayan Sharma, for the petitioner while assailing the orders impugned, has made following submissions:- 13.1. The charges levelled against the petitioner are self contradictory. The first charge levelled against the petitioner, specifically mentions that the information of theft was given to the petitioner by the SHO and in the next breath, the charge is that report was submitted to the petitioner by the complainant. The charges levelled against the petitioner are self contradictory. The first charge levelled against the petitioner, specifically mentions that the information of theft was given to the petitioner by the SHO and in the next breath, the charge is that report was submitted to the petitioner by the complainant. Learned counsel submitted that bare perusal of the charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner, makes an allegation that the information with regard to theft being committed was given to the petitioner by the SHO and the criminal case was required to be registered by the Officers, the petitioner did not make any effort and it was his duty to get the FIR registered of the incident, which had taken place. 13.2. The very basis of levelling charge against the petitioner was without any foundation and no allegation constituted of any misconduct committed by the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that the responsibility of registering an FIR, as per Section 154 Cr.P.C. is on the Incharge of the Police Station i.e. the SHO and as such the petitioner could not have been issued even the charge-sheet of an allegation of not registering an FIR. 13.3. The Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 also casts duty under Section 31 on the Officer in-charge of a police station to register FIR of cognizable offence, the moment he receives such information. Learned counsel submitted that the Authorities did not take into account the statutory provisions relating to registration of an FIR and as such there is a total non application of mind even at initial stage of issuing of chargesheet. 13.4. The petitioner has been treated in a discriminatory manner in awarding the punishment and the other co-delinquent i.e. SHO has been let off by the Appellate Authority and punishment of censure imposed on such other co-delinquent, has been given a clean-chit by the Appellate Authority and as such learned counsel has placed an order dated 19.02.2019 (Annex.15) on record to substantiate the claim of the petitioner that the other person, who was mainly responsible for not registering FIR has been left out and on the contrary, the petitioner has been made a escape got. 13.5. 13.5. Counsel submitted that the other co-delinquent namely Iqbal Hussain though has been punished with a penalty of censure, however, the allegation levelled against such co-delinquent was altogether different and as such case of the petitioner is required to be considered along-with the other co-delinquent who has been exonerated by the Authorities in the departmental proceedings. 13.6. Counsel submitted that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are perverse and no reasonable person would come to the conclusion that the alleged misconduct said to be committed by the petitioner, will lead to committing misconduct and further no punishment can be awarded on such allegations, which prima-facie do not constitute any misconduct. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submissions has placed reliance on the following judgments:- 1. The State of Punjab and Anr. Vs. Dr.Ram Kishan Chopra, P.C. M.S. reported in 1977 (2) SLR 809; 2. SL Sethia Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 1993 (1) WLC 18 ; 3. Narain Singh Ranawat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. reported in 1992 (3) WLC 465; 4. Union of India Vs. Ram Bharose Lal reported in 1987 (I) RLR 826 ; 5. Ram Chander Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in AIR 1986 SC 1173 ; 6. D.B.Special Appeal Writ No.458/2020 (Arvind Bishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan) decided on 07.01.2022. 15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State Mr.Rajesh Maharshi, AAG has made following submissions:- 15.1. The charge levelled against the petitioner was very specific as the petitioner being in-charge of a chowki, if had received the information from the complainant of the alleged incident, it was duty of the petitioner to get the FIR registered by informing the in-charge of Police Station Kotwali and as such, the petitioner was levelled with allegation of not taking any step to get the FIR registered. 15.2. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet shows that the Disciplinary Authority has not only fastened the liability of not lodging the FIR on the petitioner but also found dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner in not informing the Authorities, which is the main gist of the charge. 15.3. 15.2. A bare perusal of the charge-sheet shows that the Disciplinary Authority has not only fastened the liability of not lodging the FIR on the petitioner but also found dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioner in not informing the Authorities, which is the main gist of the charge. 15.3. The Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority have considered all the issues, which have been raised before them by the delinquent-petitioner and if the findings have recorded against the petitioner about dereliction of duty, this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not substitute its own findings. 15.4. The parity, which is claimed by the petitioner with the other co-delinquent i.e. SHO, is not applicable in the facts of the present case, as the charge against the SHO was in respect of letter dated 26.08.2021, where such delinquent was alleged of not taking any action on such letter received from the office of Superintendent of Police. The Appellate Authority in respect of other code-linquent found that such letter was even not put up before the SHO and as such in absence of any material, the other co-delinquent was not awarded any punishment. 15.5.Learned counsel submitted that the other co-delinquent Iqbal Hussain has also been punished with the penalty of censure and as such the case of the petitioner is not a stand alone case moreso, when the other co-delinquent, with dereliction of duty, has been punished, the petitioner also needs to be punished in the same manner. 15.6. The Disciplinary Authority has come to right conclusion that the petitioner was negligent in discharge of his duty, as he did not inform the Higher Authorities about the complaint received by the petitioner from complainant. Admittedly the petitioner was posted as in-charge of the Police Chowki under which the alleged incident had taken place of theft and it was bounden duty of the petitioner to take cognizance of the report or information, which was given to him and he could not have directed the complainant to first go to the Police Station to register the FIR and it was onerous duty of the petitioner to take cognizance or to receive the information of a cognizable offence and then immediately proper steps were to be taken to get the FIR registered. 15.7. 15.7. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the scope of the judicial review in Disciplinary proceedings has been narrowed down by the Apex Court from time to time and as such learned counsel for the respondent places reliance on the following judgments:- 1. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs.Rajit Singh reported in AIR 2022 SC 1551 ; 2. Anil Kumar Upadhyay Vs.The Director General SSB and Ors. reported in AIR 2022 SC 2008 ; 3. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. Vs.Subrata Nath (Civil Appeal No.7941-7942/2022) decided on 23.11.2022. Learned counsel on the strength of these judgments submitted that the case of the petitioner does not fall in any of the parameters where the findings of the Disciplinary proceedings, can be interfered by this Court. 15.8. Learned counsel further submitted that the negative equality is not permitted in law and as such Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not apply in the present case, as the other co-delinquent i.e. SHO has been exonerated on different charges levelled against him and rather the case of the petitioner is required to be treated similarly with that of other co-delinquent Iqbal Hussain, who has been punished. 16. I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 17. This Court finds the following facts to be undisputed in the present case:- 17.1. The complainant-Surya Narayan Ojha had reported the incident of theft said to be taken place on 23.08.2011 by giving information of the said incident on 24.08.2011. 17.2. The posting of the petitioner was not at Police Station Kotwali and his posting was at Police Chowki Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara. 17.3. The written report was given by the complainant to the SHO of Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara on 24.08.2011 and there was an endorsement of such report being received at 8:30 in the morning. 17.4. The person, who was at Police Station, Kotwali also accepted that complaint of the complainant did not result into registering the FIR and only in proceedings i.e. ( dk;Zokgh iqfyl ), he recorded that the complaint was filed by the complainant and accordingly the case was to be investigated and one person-Shiv Raj was assigned this duty to investigate. 17.5. The person, who was at Police Station, Kotwali also accepted that complaint of the complainant did not result into registering the FIR and only in proceedings i.e. ( dk;Zokgh iqfyl ), he recorded that the complaint was filed by the complainant and accordingly the case was to be investigated and one person-Shiv Raj was assigned this duty to investigate. 17.5. The allegation levelled against the petitioner shows that the complaint was first received by the SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara and the same was also sent to the petitioner and the petitioner had also gone to the site. 18. This Court finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that bare perusal of Charge No.1 shows that the information relating to the alleged incident was given to the petitioner by the SHO Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara and accordingly the petitioner had also proceeded to the site, where the alleged incident had taken place. 19. This Court further finds substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that responsibility of lodging FIR was on the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station as per Section 154 Cr.P.C. and further the provision contained under Section 31 of the Rajasthan Police Act 2007, also casts a duty on the Officer-in-charge of the Police Station after receiving information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, he has to record such information. 20. The facts in the present case shows that the complainant himself went to the Police Station on 24.08.2011 and his written complaint was taken at the police Station Kotwali. 21. This Court after going through the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority finds that the Disciplinary Authority came to wrong conclusion that role of the petitioner was there in not getting the FIR registered and further not informing the incident to the Higher officials is also not supported by any evidence. 22. This Court finds that no evidence was led on behalf of the Department to show that the petitioner did not take any action of informing the Higher Officials of the alleged incident, which he had received in respect of theft being committed. 23. 22. This Court finds that no evidence was led on behalf of the Department to show that the petitioner did not take any action of informing the Higher Officials of the alleged incident, which he had received in respect of theft being committed. 23. This Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of assumptions has drawn the conclusion that role of the petitioner had perpetuated illegality and showed dereliction of duty, which was committed by the other officers and as such the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are not supported by any evidence and the same is required to be treated as perverse finding. 24. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the charges levelled against the petitioner were in respect of not registering the FIR, this Court finds that the bare reading of the charge No.1 alleged against the petitioner itself shows that SHO, Police Station Kotwali, Bhilwara had got the information and he directed the petitioner to proceed to the site and as such it cannot be inferred that the petitioner in any manner was responsible if the prompt action was not taken by the Officers, who were legally authorize to take such action by registering FIR immediately on receiving such information. 25. This Court in no way means to say that duty of the petitioner was not there to take prompt action of information being received by him, however, the fact of lodging of an FIR or belatedly if any action is taken by the any officer, role of the petitioner would be examined in view of his assignment of duty at Police Chowki, Bhilwara. 26. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the other co-delinquent i.e. SHO has been levelled with different charge as he did not act upon the directions received from the Office of Superintendent of Police on letter received by him on 26.08.2011, this Court finds that if the person, who was responsible for registering the FIR at first place has been let off then the petitioner in such circumstances could not have been awarded the punishment. 27. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the Apex Court in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. 27. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent that the Apex Court in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh (supra) has laid down the law that even if some officers involved in the incident are exonerated then the other delinquent cannot be granted benefit if the charges are proved against him in Departmental enquiry and there cannot be any claim of negative equity in such cases, this Court finds that in the facts of the present case, 3 persons were issued charge-sheets or issued memos and the person who was mainly responsible for registering FIR i.e. SHO, has been let off by the Authorities and the other persons i.e. the petitioner and one more person i.e. Iqbal Hussain have been punished with the penalty of censure, this Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority cannot act in an arbitrary manner while awarding the punishment. 28. There is no quarrel on the proposition that claim of negative equity cannot be made applicable in respect of Disciplinary proceedings, however, the facts of the each case need to be examined by the Court and if allegations are in respect of the same incident or series of allegations resulting into issuance of charge-sheet to different persons, assigning them role of committing misconduct, then this Court is required to see as whether the Authorities have considered the issue with regard to culpability of such officers in proper manner or not. 29. The reliance is placed by learned counsel for the respondents on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs.Subrata Nath (supra), this Court, in order to examine the facts of the present case and law applicable in the present case, deems it proper to quote the relevant part of the judgment as follows:- “19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Ors. v. P. Gunasekaran MANU/SC/1068/2014: (2015) 2 SCC 610 held thus: 12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. v. P. Gunasekaran MANU/SC/1068/2014: (2015) 2 SCC 610 held thus: 12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.” 30. This Court finds that the Apex Court in the aforesaid case has also laid down the law that the High Court can see whether the conclusion, on the very face of it is wholly arbitrary and capricious and no reasonable person would arrive at such conclusion then the High Court can examine Disciplinary Proceedings. 31. This Court finds that the Apex Court in the aforesaid case has also laid down the law that the High Court can see whether the conclusion, on the very face of it is wholly arbitrary and capricious and no reasonable person would arrive at such conclusion then the High Court can examine Disciplinary Proceedings. 31. This Court is conscious of the fact that in Disciplinary proceedings, the High Court will not sit as a Court of first appeal as the Authorities have already applied their mind and the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority have also gone into and examined the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. 32. This Court finds that if the very foundation of the charge is not made out as the responsibility of registering the FIR is assigned to a particular person under the provision of Criminal Procedure Code and as per Rajasthan Police Act, 2007 and if there has been delay in lodging of the FIR, for any reason, the person, who has received the information from the complainant, cannot be made responsible for committing such misconduct that in spite of information received by him as in-charge of a Police Chowki, but finally FIR was not registered by such person concerned. 33. The objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent-State in respect of dereliction of duty in not discharging the duty in a proper manner, as the petitioner was first contacted by the complainant before going to the Police Station and the version of the respondents is that the complainant had first gone to the petitioner to report about the alleged incident as it fell in his jurisdiction and as such the petitioner is equally responsible in not discharging his duty, this Court finds that in the facts of the present case, the complainant had not only contacted the Police Station but he had to go to the office of Superintendent of Police also and even thereafter FIR was not lodged and then on a complaint being filed and matter being sent under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., the FIR was registered at much belated stage, somewhere in the month of November, 2011. 34. This speaks volumes about the way these public servants are discharging their duties. 34. This speaks volumes about the way these public servants are discharging their duties. There is no doubt that any complainant, if he approaches the Police Authorities, it is their bounden duty to take note of the complaint or information received by them and prompt action is required to be taken by the persons, who have been assigned such statutory duties. 35. The submission of learned counsel for the respondents-Mr.Rajesh Maharshi, AAG that the other co-delinquent Iqbal Hussain, who was issued charge-sheet, as he had also failed to discharge his duties in spite of information received by him to register the FIR, this Court finds that there is a specific allegation against the co-delinquent that the complainant had met such delinquent in Police Station on 25.08.2011 and the delinquent employee did not give the FIR number in the report which he had lodged and he had only sent a report without registering the FIR to the present delinquent. 36. The Disciplinary Authority on considering the specific allegation against such other co-delinquent has punished him, however, role of the petitioner, which has been assigned and the allegation, which has been levelled against him, cannot be put at par and accordingly on that anvil, the petitioner cannot be punished. 37. This Court finds that the orders passed by the Authorities dated 26.07.2014, 05.06.2015 & 27.09.2016 are not legally sustainable and the same are quashed and set aside. The consequential benefits may be given to the petitioner on account of setting aside these orders within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.