JUDGMENT : ANANDA SEN, J. At the very outset, learned counsel representing the petitioner seeks permission to correct the name of the petitioner as “ Mina Devi ”, in place of “Meena Kumari”, in the cause title of the writ petition. He submits that the petitioner is known as “ Mina Devi ”, and she has also executed the Vakalatnama as “ Mina Devi ”. 2. Considering the aforesaid submission, the petitioner is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition in red ink, during the course of the day. 3. Heard learned counsel representing the petitioner and learned counsel representing the respondents. 4. By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order as contained in Memo No.36 dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), whereby respondent No.3 - The Director General of Police, Jharkhand, has enhanced the punishment of the deceased husband of the petitioner to compulsory retirement, on the recommendation of respondent No.4 - the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribag. The petitioner also prays for grant of all consequential benefits after reinstatement of her late husband in service. 5. The fact giving rise to the present controversy is that late Parmeshwar Singh (husband of this petitioner) and one Om Prakash Singh, stood as bailer of one convict namely Akhilesh Singh, who was granted bail by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 24.01.2014 in Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.280 of 2006. 5.1. Thereafter, the bail of Akhilesh Singh (convict) was cancelled by this Court vide order dated 03.07.2008, as he failed to appear before the learned Court below. The convict approached this Court for renewal of his prayer for bail, which was rejected by this Court vide orders dated 05.09.2013 and 24.01.2014. 5.2. Thereafter, learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Jamshedpur, vide Letter No.430/2016 dated 06.12.2016 informed that the convict failed to appear before the Court, on the basis of which the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court issued notice upon late Parmeshwar Singh and Om Prakash Singh, directing them to ensure physical appearance of Akhilesh Singh. Accordingly, learned Court below directed both these bailers to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, in terms of the surety provided by them. 5.3. Accordingly, learned Court below directed both these bailers to deposit a sum of Rs.50,000/- each, in terms of the surety provided by them. 5.3. In compliance of the aforesaid order, husband of this petitioner has deposited Rs.50,000/- with an undertaken that he did not know the convict – Akhilesh Singh personally, when he stood as surety. 5.4. On the plea of husband of the petitioner of standing as one of the bailers without knowing him personally, the Hon’ble Division Bench observed that husband of this petitioner and Om Prakash Singh have committed serious misconduct. The Hon’ble Division Bench thus directed the Department to proceed against both of them departmentally, and accordingly Parmeshwar Singh was served with the Memo of Charge dated 13.03.2017, and he was put under suspension and after conclusion of the departmental proceeding being Departmental Proceeding No.12 of 2017, the husband of the petitioner was found guilty and vide order dated 11.04.2018, the Superintendent of Police, Giridih, imposed the punishment of forfeiture of increments of two year’s salary, which will be equivalent to three black marks. 5.5. Subsequently, respondent No.3, on the recommendation of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Hazaribag, enhanced the punishment to husband of this petitioner to compulsory retirement vide Memo No.36 dated 17.03.2020. 6. Learned counsel representing the petitioner while relying upon the order dated 31.08.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No.171 of 2019 (Om Prakash Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), submits that the case of this petitioner is exactly similar to Om Prakash Singh, whose order of punishment had been quashed. He further submits that even the case of husband of the petitioner stands on much better footing than that of Om Prakash Singh, as he was inflicted with much lesser punishment as compared to Om Prakash Singh. 7. The charge framed against late Parmeshwar Singh (husband of this petitioner) is itself beyond the direction of this Court’s order, inasmuch as the Hon’ble Division Bench has taken serious objection over the issue as to why late Parmeshwar Singh has become surety without knowing the convict and directed the Authority to proceed against him departmentally, whereas the charge itself speaks that the petitioner was knowing the accused, however, he was not knowing him personally. 7.1. 7.1. So far as involvement of late Parmeshwar Singh, in commission of crime is concerned, there is no finding to that effect, rather the only finding against him is that since he became surety of a dreaded criminal, who further committed a crime, as such he had been held guilty for his disobedience and indiscipline. 7.2. Thus, late Parmeshwar Singh, cannot be alleged to be involved in furtherance of the crime committed by the convict and even otherwise, since there was the order of this Court that both the surety should be Government servant and that is the reason Parmeshwar Singh became bailer as he knew the convict as he was son of another Police personnel. 7.3. Further, I find that the other delinquent namely Om Prakash Singh had filed a writ being W.P.(S) No.171 of 2019, wherein the Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that the Om Prakash Singh has already been punished under the specific provision of the Cr.P.C., whereby Rs.50,000/- has already been fortified. It was also held that the charge itself was beyond the direction of the High Court’s, as the petitioner was knowing the accused, however he was not knowing him personally. Further, there is no finding to the effect that the co-delinquent was involved in furtherance of the crime committed by the said convict. 7.4. It was the opinion of the Court that the punishment imposed upon the co-delinquent namely Om Prakash Singh is highly excessive, which touches the conscious of this Court. The Coordinate Bench of this Court thus quashed the order of punishment order, whereby Om Prakash Singh was inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement. However, the Coordinate Bench granted liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to revisit the order of punishment. 8. In my view, the case of the petitioner stands on much better footing than that of the co-delinquent namely Om Prakash Singh. 8.1. Further on the same set of allegation and on the same set of facts a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No.171 of 2019 (Om Prakash Singh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), vide order dated 31.08.2021, while allowing the writ petition had quashed the order of punishment of co-delinquent namely Om Prakash Singh and also ordered to reinstate his service. The Coordinate Bench also granted consequential benefits of Om Prakash Singh, in accordance with law and applicable rules. 8.2. The State of Jharkhand & Ors.), vide order dated 31.08.2021, while allowing the writ petition had quashed the order of punishment of co-delinquent namely Om Prakash Singh and also ordered to reinstate his service. The Coordinate Bench also granted consequential benefits of Om Prakash Singh, in accordance with law and applicable rules. 8.2. The case of this petitioner is exactly on the same footing to that of the co-delinquent and the same cannot be differentiated. He also should be treated in the same manner as his co-delinquent was dealt with. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 (at para-9), held as hereunder:- “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 has 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. In the light of aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the firm view that the enhancement of earlier punishment to compulsory retirement of late husband of the petitioner is bad. Thus, in view of order dated 31.08.2021 passed in W.P.(S) No.171 of 2019, whereby the order of punishment of similarly situated co- delinquent was set aside and he had been reinstated in his service, the order as contained in Memo No.36 dated 17.03.2020 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition), whereby the punishment of deceased husband of the petitioner was enhanced, is quashed and set aside. 11. It has been informed that late Parmeshwar Singh died after attaining the age of superannuation. Thus, the petitioner who happens to be the wife of Parmeshwar Singh, is entitled for all consequential benefits, which would be granted to her within a period of eight weeks, from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed.