JUDGMENT : Ritu Bahri, C.J. The appellant – Trilok Chandra Arya has come up in appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 05.12.2014 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 401/2009, whereby his Writ Petition was dismissed, wherein he had challenged the order dated 19.03.2009 passed by the Inspector General of Prisons, Dehradun, whereby three increments of the appellant were withheld with prospective effect, which is a major penalty. 2. The present appellant was serving as a Bandi Rakshak (Jail Warder) in the Uttarakhand Police Jail Service. In the year 2005-06, the appellant, while working as the Jail Warder, Sampoornanand Shivir, Sitarganj, District Udham Singh Nagar, was charge-sheeted vide order dated 21.11.2005, with the allegations that on 07.07.2005 and 08.07.2005, he had beaten undertrial prisoner Sikander, s/o Kashiram, and undertrial prisoner Karveer Singh, s/o Manichand, without any reason. He was charge-sheeted under Rules 1095, 1105 and 1118(10) of the Prison Rules. 3. As per the Inquiry Report (Annexure No. 6 to the Writ Petition), the appellant was held to be guilty, and all the charges were proved against him. Thereafter, he was given a show-cause notice (Annexure No. 7 to the Writ Petition) on 30.05.2006, asking him to show cause, as to why he should not be punished, and finally vide order dated 19.03.2009 (Annexure No. 11 to the Writ Petition) he was punished by stopping of his three increments, with cumulative effect. 4. The Writ Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by observing that the inquiry had been conducted by the authority. After going through the Inquiry Report, the Court found that the Inquiry was conducted, and the allegations were found to be correct against the appellant, and the appellant, along with another Jail Warder, namely Bhagwan Saran Dixit, had mercilessly beaten up under-trial prisoner, namely Rakesh. 5. Counsel for the appellant, at the outset, states that the other Jail Warder, namely Bhagwan Saran Dixit, was also charge-sheeted, along with the present appellant on 21.11.2005, with the same allegations, and he was also issued a charge-sheet under Rules 1095, 1105 and 1118(10) of the Prison Rules, as was done in the case of the present appellant. He was punished vide order dated 20.01.2012, and his two increments were withheld with prospective effect. He was punished vide order dated 20.01.2012, and his two increments were withheld with prospective effect. However, in the case of Shri Bhagwan Saran Dixit, he filed an appeal against the said order of punishment before the Principal Secretary (Home), and vide order dated 17.01.2013, the Principal Secretary observed that, from the statement of the Investigating Officer, it was found that the incident of money transaction by Shri Bhagwan Saran Dixit (Jail Warder) was not the reason behind the incident of argument and fight with the prisoners. The Principal Secretary further observed that, considering the fact that Shri Bhagwan Saran Dixit was a low salaried employee, his punishment was reduced from withholding of two increments with prospective effect, to withholding of two increments without prospective effect. 6. Since the appellant had approached this Court, by way of filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 401/2009, and did not file any appeal before the Principal Secretary (Home), the short question for consideration in the present Special Appeal is, whether the appellant should be given the same punishment, as was given to Shri Bhagwan Saran Dixit, whose punishment has been reduced from withholding of two increments with prospective effect, to withholding of two increments without prospective effect. 7. The appellant has placed on record the order passed in the case of Shri Bhagwan Singh Dixit, along with his Special Appeal as Annexure No. 4. Counsel for the State is not disputing the above-said order - Annexure No. 4 in favour of Shri Bhagwan Singh Dixit. Even the charge-sheet dated 21.11.2005 issued to the present appellant is Annexure No. 2 to the Special Appeal. Annexure No. 3 is the charge-sheet dated 21.11.2005 issued to Shri Bhagwan Saran Dixit. Both the charge-sheets contain the same allegations. 8. In the present Special Appeal, the appellant is not challenging the findings recorded in the Inquiry Report, he is only seeking parity of reduction of punishment at par with Shri Bhagwan Saran Dixit, who was charge-sheeted on the same allegations. 9. Both the charge-sheets contain the same allegations. 8. In the present Special Appeal, the appellant is not challenging the findings recorded in the Inquiry Report, he is only seeking parity of reduction of punishment at par with Shri Bhagwan Saran Dixit, who was charge-sheeted on the same allegations. 9. The prayer made by the appellant is reasonable, and keeping in view the order dated 17.01.2013 passed by the Principal Secretary (Home) in the case of Shri Bhagwan Saran Dixit (Annexure No. 4 to the Special Appeal), the present appellant is also entitled to claim parity at par with Shri Bhagwan Saran Dixit, as even the present appellant is a low salaried employee, who is working in the Jail Department as a Jail Warder. 10. Accordingly, the present Special Appeal is allowed. The punishment awarded to the appellant, vide order dated 19.03.2009, is reduced from withholding of three increments with prospective effect, to withholding of three increments without prospective effect. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of accordingly.