ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The petitioner was the Medical Officer in Jannayak Karpuri Thakur Referral Hospital, Tajpur, Samastipur. He was absence for his duty on and from 24th April, 2002 to 3rd April, 2005. The said absence having been considered unauthorized absence by a Government Servant from his duties, a departmental proceeding was proposed as per Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. 3. Memorandum of charge against the petitioner was served on 4th November, 2010. Memorandum of charge runs thus:— fTkyk inkfèkdkjh] leLrhiqj] i=kad 1559] fnukad 11-04-2003 rFkk flfoy ltZu] leLrhiqj] i=kad 1270 fnukad 15-05-2003 }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd mDr fpfdRlk inkfèkdkjh vius dk;ZLFky ls yaoh vofèk ls xk;c gS rFkk dk;Z ds Áfr ykijokg jgrs gSaA LokLF; foHkkx ds i=kad 1160¼9½ fnukad 25-11-2003 rFkk i=kad 172¼9½ fnukad 10-02-2004 ,oa 174¼9½@27] 21@iŒ fnukad 10-02-2004 rFkk Kkikad 1380¼9½ fnukad 23-08-2004 ,oa 1387¼9½@34@iŒ fnukad 23-08-2004 ,oa 1167¼9½ fnukad 8-11-2006 rFkk 304¼9½ fnukad 10-03-08 }kjk Li"Vhdj.k dh ek¡x dh xbZ fdUrq fdUgha inkfèkdkjh }kjk Li"Vhdj.k nsus dk d"V ugha fd;kA vr% ;s fcgkj lsok vkpkj fu;ekoyh] 1976 ds fu;e&3 ds mYya?ku ds nks"kh gSA vuqŒ&;FkksDr ¼mijksDr lanfHkZr lHkh i=ksa dh Nk;kÁfr layXu½A 4. Subsequently, the departmental authority considered such unauthorized absence of the petitioner as grave misconduct and punished him with reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post or service which shall ordinarily be a Bar to the promotion of the Government Servant to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with further direction regarding conditions of restoration to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which Government Servant was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that time scale of pay, grade, post or service as contemplated in Rule 14(vii) of Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. 5. The petitioner has challenged the order of punishment by filing the instant writ petition mainly on the ground that the disciplinary authority also considered unauthorized absence of at least three other Medical Officers who were absent continuously for a period more than period for which the petitioner was absent, were subjected to disciplinary proceeding and their unauthorized absence was leniently viewed by the department and only minor penalties were passed against them. On the contrary, for the same unauthorized absence for a lesser period, the petitioner was subjected to major punishment. 6. Therefore, on the ground of parity, the petitioner has prayed for reconsideration of his punishment by the department. 7. The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder to the counter affidavit and reiterated his case. 8. The respondents have filed counter affidavit denying all the allegations made out by the petitioner. It is the specific case of the respondents that due to unauthorized absent of a Medical Officer, the health service was affected and he was rightly subjected to major punishment in departmental proceeding. It is also contended that the departmental proceeding continued following the procedure contained in Rule 17 as well as the principle of natural justice. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order of punishment passed against the petitioner. 9. By filing a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has annexed the orders passed by the Secretariat under the order of the Government taking lenient view and imposing minor penalties against other three doctors namely, Dr. Shail Kumari Jha, Dr. Gayatri Singh and Dr. Gopal Prasad. The petitioner has also filed series of prescriptions to show that his father was suffering from various disease in the year 2002 and subsequently, he died on 11th March, 2003. 10. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2013 (3) SCC 73 . 11. In the aforesaid Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the appellant sort for parity of punishment with similarly placed constable against whom departmental proceeding was initiated and minor punishment was granted. Under such background, it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court:— Paragraph 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 have also be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parities to the same transaction or incident. Parity among co-delinquents have also be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of co-delinquents who are parities to the same transaction or incident. The departmental authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences. Paragraph 10. The principles stated above is seen apprise in a few judgments of this Court. The earliest one is D.G. of Police & Ors. vs. G. Dasayan reported in 1998 (2) SCC 407 wherein one Dasayan, a police Constable along with other Constables and one Head Constable were charged for the same acts of misconduct. The disciplinary authority exonerated to other Constables but imposed punishment of dismissal from service on Dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on the Head Constable. This Court, in order to make ends of judgments, substituted order of compulsory retirement in place of the order of dismissal from the service on Dasayan, complying the principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents, this Court held that it may, otherwise violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Paragraph 11. In Anand Regional Co. Op Oil S. Union Ltd vs. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah reported in (2006) 6 SCC 548 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 schemes. In such circumstances, this Court directed 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. Paragraph 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 codelinquent 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. 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, reinstated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was reinstated and be given all the consequential benefits as were given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. 12. The principle laid down in the above mentioned report is squarely applicable in the instant case. It is found from the record that the petitioner and other doctors also were absent from their duties unauthorizedly four years together. The doctors who were absent for more than the period for which the petitioner was absent were imposed minor penalties, while the petitioner was punished with major penalty contemplated in Rule 14(vii) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005. On the principle of parity, the order of punishment passed by the concerned respondents against the petitioner is not permissible. Accordingly, the order of major punishment is quashed and set aside. 13. The case is remitted back to the concerned department for imposing penalty upon the petitioner on the principle of parity shown in the cases of Dr. Shail Kumari Jha, Dr. Gayatri Singh and Dr. Gopal Prasad. 14. The respondents are directed to take appropriate decision on the basis of the observation made hereinabove within sixty days from the date of communication of this order. 15. The instant writ petition is accordingly allowed on contest.