JUDGMENT : Abdul Moin, J. 1 . Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2 . By means of the present petition, the petitioner since deceased and substituted by the legal heirs, has challenged the order dated 16.09.2000 passed by the respondent No.2, a copy of which is Anenxure-16 to the petition. Further prayer is for payment of subsistence allowance to the petitioner. 3 . As Sarwar Hussain the petitioner has died, as such, for the sake of convenience, Sarwar Hussain would be referred to as the petitioner. 4 . By means of the order dated 16.09.2000, the petitioner since deceased has been dismissed from service. 5 . The facts of the case revolve in a narrow compass inasmuch as the petitioner was working as Store Keeper when he was issued charge- sheet dated 20.07.1999, a copy of which is Annexure-8 to the petition. 6 . The charges leveled in the charge-sheet were that from a savings bank account of the Nigam maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Sitapur an amount of Rs.56,000/- was withdrawn vide a Cheque No.482371. The cheque was made out to an unknown person by the name of S.P. Singh although no amount was payable to him. In the preliminary enquiry it emerged that the petitioner had stolen the cheque and thereafter made the signatures of Shri P.K. Garg and Shri Atul Mehrotra and upon the cheque being presented, the aforesaid amount was withdrawn. 7 . In support of the charges leveled against the petitioner, the respondents had made preliminary inquiry report, the report of the handwriting expert and the accounts documents of the Unit as the documents to be read against him. 8 . A Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his reply on 25.04.2000, a copy of which is Annexure-15 to the petition. 9 . The disciplinary authority vide order impugned dated 16.09.2000 upon consideration of the inquiry report has dismissed the petitioner from service and hence the petition. 10 . 8 . A Show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted his reply on 25.04.2000, a copy of which is Annexure-15 to the petition. 9 . The disciplinary authority vide order impugned dated 16.09.2000 upon consideration of the inquiry report has dismissed the petitioner from service and hence the petition. 10 . Grounds taken by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner while raising the challenge to the punishment order and the legal grounds on the basis of supplementary affidavit as have been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are (a) that a perusal of the impugned removal order dated 16.09.2000 would indicate that none of the grounds that have been raised by the petitioner in his reply to the show cause notice dated 16.02.2000 have been considered while passing the order impugned. (b) disparity in punishment to the persons involved in the entire episode. 11 . Elaborating this ground, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argues that the preliminary enquiry report dated 07.11.1998, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the writ petition, would indicate the connivance of three officers namely Shri P.K. Garg, who was Project Manager and had opened the concerned Bank account which was a savings bank account without approval from the Headquarters; Shri B.B.L. Gupta, who was the Assistant Accountant and was also the in-charge of the cheque book and cheque issue register and had duly been informed by one Shri Mohd Yunus, the Office Assistant regarding Cheque No.482371 i.e. the cheque involved in the entire episode, having gone missing but no endorsement had been made by Shri Gupta in the said register; and Shri Mohd Yunus, who was the Office Assistant and who is said to have informed Shri B.B.L. Gupta about the cheque having gone missing to which it had been observed in the preliminary enquiry report itself that the statements given by Shri B.B.L. Gupta do not appear to be correct and that he has tried to hide his mistakes. 12 . The contention is that all the aforesaid three persons were actively involved in the entire episode which had resulted in an amount of Rs.56,000/- being withdrawn. 13 . 12 . The contention is that all the aforesaid three persons were actively involved in the entire episode which had resulted in an amount of Rs.56,000/- being withdrawn. 13 . The argument is that obviously, no saving bank account could have been opened for the respondent-Corporation and in case Shri P.K. Garg, the Project Manager opened the said savings bank account and admittedly the same was opened without any approval from the Headquarter, as specifically finds place in the preliminary enquiry report, the same thus appears to be the first act in the entire episode for withdrawal of the amount Rs.56,000/- with the active connivance of Shri B.B.L. Gupta, the Assistant Accountant and Shri Mohd Yunus, Office Assistant but it is only the petitioner who has been imposed extreme penalty of dismissal from service while Shri B.B.L. Gupta has been imposed with withholding of one increment permanently and a penalty of censure while no action has been taken against Shri P.K.Garg. 14 . It is also contended that initially Shri Mohd Yunus had been dismissed from service but upon a challenge being raised to the dismissal order by Shri Mohd Yunus by filing Writ Petition No.6544(SS) of 2000 In Re Mohd Yunus Khan vs Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd , decided on 04.09.2012, this court had quashed the said order and remitted the matter to the appointing authority to consider a lesser punishment and subsequent thereto, Mohd Yunus has been imposed with a penalty of withholding of one increment permanently. 15 . Placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav vs State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2013) 3 SCC 73 and Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr vs Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 the argument is that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that there should be parity in punishment inasmuch as all persons similarly circumstanced should be punished likewise and there cannot be any discrimination in punishment. 16 . Another ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no date, time or place of enquiry has been fixed in the matter which thus vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings as well as the impugned order of dismissal. 17 . 16 . Another ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that no date, time or place of enquiry has been fixed in the matter which thus vitiates the entire enquiry proceedings as well as the impugned order of dismissal. 17 . On the other hand, Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit has argued that the active role of the petitioner in the entire episode has clearly emerged as would be apparent from perusal of the report of handwriting expert from which it is clearly apparent that the cheque, with which an amount of Rs.56,000/- was withdrawn, was bearing the handwriting and the fraudulent signatures that were made by the petitioner and thus there cannot be parity with the other persons namely Shri P.K. Garg, B.B.L. Yadav and Shri Mohd Yunus whose roles have been spelt out in the preliminary enquiry report itself. He further argues that once the petitioner himself was the main culprit consequently the punishment imposed upon him i.e. of dismissal has correctly been imposed and once the charges leveled against the others were different there cannot be any occasion of parity. However, Shri Jain does not dispute the punishments meted out to Shri B.B.L. Gupta and Shri Mohd Yunus and no action having been taken against Shri P.K. Garg. 18 . So far as non consideration of the petitioner's reply in the dismissal order is concerned, the argument of Shri Shishir Jain is that the petitioner had not indicated anything new in his reply to the show cause notice that had been given by the respondent-Corporation and consequently no error was committed by the disciplinary authority in not considering the reply as had been given by Sarwar Hussain. 19 . Shri Jain also argues that perusal of the enquiry report would indicate that repeated opportunity of personal hearing had been given to the petitioner but the petitioner admittedly failed to appear on one pretext or the other on the said dates consequently no error has been committed by the enquiry officer in submitting the enquiry report. 20 . 19 . Shri Jain also argues that perusal of the enquiry report would indicate that repeated opportunity of personal hearing had been given to the petitioner but the petitioner admittedly failed to appear on one pretext or the other on the said dates consequently no error has been committed by the enquiry officer in submitting the enquiry report. 20 . As regards the subsistence allowance, Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Corporation has argued that after the petitioner had been placed under suspension, he was required to be submit a certificate of not being engaged in any other business or profession in order to get subsistence allowance but he failed to do so and as such subsistence allowance was not paid to him. 21 . Heard learned counsel for contesting parties and perused the record. 22 . While the petitioner was working as Store Keeper, an amount of Rs.56,000/- was withdrawn from the savings bank account of the Corporation maintained with the Oriental Bank of Commerce vide Cheque number 482371. In a preliminary enquiry, it emerged that the petitioner had stolen the cheque and thereafter had made the signatures of Shri P.K.Garg and Shri Atul Mehrotra on the said cheque and upon the said cheque being presented before the bank, aforesaid amount was withdrawn. 23 . Handwriting on the cheque and the signatures on the cheque were duly determined by the respondents on the basis of the report of the handwriting expert, to be that of the petitioner. 24 . A preliminary enquiry was held of which a report dated 07.11.1998 was drawn up. 25 . A perusal of the report indicates that Shri P.K. Garg, Project Manager had opened the concerned bank account without approval from the Headquarters. Incidentally, the Bank account, as already indicated above, was a savings bank account and obviously no savings bank account could be opened for a Corporation. Shri B.B.L. Gupta, the Assistant Accountant, who was also in-charge of the cheque book and cheque issue register had duly been informed by Shri Mohd Yunus, the Office Assistant regarding the cheque no.482371 i.e. the cheque involved in the entire episode having gone missing but no endorsement had been made by Shri Gupta in the register. Shri B.B.L. Gupta, the Assistant Accountant, who was also in-charge of the cheque book and cheque issue register had duly been informed by Shri Mohd Yunus, the Office Assistant regarding the cheque no.482371 i.e. the cheque involved in the entire episode having gone missing but no endorsement had been made by Shri Gupta in the register. He also denied Shri Mohd Yunus having informed him about the loss of the cheque which in the preliminary enquiry was found to be not correct and Shri Gupta was found to have cleverly hidden his mistakes and the correct facts. 26 . The preliminary enquiry may have remained a preliminary enquiry but for the fact that the said preliminary enquiry report was made part of the charge-sheet dated 26.03.1999, which was issued to the petitioner and the charge against the petitioner was of having fraudulently withdrawn Rs.56,000/- from the bank on the basis of fake signatures on the cheque which was sought to be proved on the basis of said preliminary enquiry report along with the report of the handwriting expert. Thus, it is apparent that the respondents were of the view that the said preliminary report should be utilized against the petitioner. 27 . The enquiry report dated 19.01.2000 was submitted in which charges were found proved against the petitioner in which again strong reliance had been placed on the preliminary enquiry report. 28 . Show Cause Notice was issued to the petitioner to which he submitted a reply but the disciplinary authority without considering the grounds taken by the petitioner in his reply, passed the impugned order of dismissal. 29 . Sheet anchor of the argument of the petitioner is the preliminary enquiry report which, as already been indicated above, indicates connivance of Shri P.K. Garg the Project Manager having opened concerned bank without approval from the headquarter and Shri B.B.L. Gupta, the Assistant Accountant and in-charge of cheque book and cheque issue register having not endorsed about the said cheque having gone missing. 30 . 30 . When the charge against the petitioner is seen in the light of the preliminary enquiry report and the departmental enquiry report as submitted against the petitioner, it emerges about a savings bank account having been opened by Shri P.K. Garg without any authority from the headquarter, Shri B.B.L. Gupta not having entered the lost cheque in the cheque book and cheque issue register and the petitioner having made forged signatures on the cheque which all action resulted in the withdrawal of Rs.56,000/- from the bank. Thus, the petitioner was only one part of the entire episode which started with an unauthorized saving bank account being opened by Shri P.K. Garg and which culminated with fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.56,000/-. 31 . Admittedly, Shri B.B.L. Gupta has been punished with a penalty of withholding of one increment permanently and a penalty of censure. No action has been taken against Shri P.K. Garg. Dismissal order imposed against Shri Mohd Yunus was set aside by this Court vide judgment and order dated 04.09.2012 and upon it being remitted to the respondents, Shri Mohd Yunus had been imposed with a penalty of withholding one increment permanently while it is only the petitioner who has been imposed with a major penalty of dismissal from service. 32 . As already indicated above, all the aforesaid persons were part of the same episode and consequently there clearly has been discrimination in punishment meted out to the individuals, who are involved in the entire episode, with two individuals namely Shri B.B.L. Gupta and Shri Mohd Yunus being punished with withholding one increment permanently and another individual namely Shri P.K. Garg not being proceeded against. 33 . Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav (supra) has held as under:- "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. 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. 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 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. The principle stated above is seen applied in a few judgments of this Court. The earliest one is DG of Police v. G. Dasayan , (1998) 2 SCC 407 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 557 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 [ (2006) 6 SCC 548 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1486] the workman was dismissed from service for proved misconduct. This Court held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 11. In Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah case [ (2006) 6 SCC 548 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1486] 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. We are of the view that the principle laid down in the abovementioned 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." 34 . Likewise the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Singh (supra) has held as under:- "17. If there is a complete parity in the two sets of cases, imposing different penalties would not be appropriate as inflicting of any/higher penalty in one case would be discriminatory and would amount to infraction of the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That is the ratio of Rajendra Yadav case [ Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. , (2013) 3 SCC 73 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 476 : (2013) 2 Scale 416 ] , already taken note above. On the other hand, if there is some difference, different penalty can be meted out and what should be the quantum is to be left to the appellate authority. However, such a penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and cannot be shockingly disproportionate. On the other hand, if there is some difference, different penalty can be meted out and what should be the quantum is to be left to the appellate authority. However, such a penalty should be commensurate with the gravity of misconduct and cannot be shockingly disproportionate. As per the ratio of Obettee (P) Ltd. case [ Obettee (P) Ltd. v. Mohd. Shafiq Khan , (2005) 8 SCC 46 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1075] even if the nature of misconduct committed by the two sets of employees is same, the conduct of one set of employees accepting the guilt and pleading for lenient view would justify lesser punishment to them than the other employees who remained adopted the mode of denial, with the result that charges stood proved ultimately in a full-fledged enquiry conducted against them. In that event, higher penalty can be imposed upon such delinquent employees. It would follow that choosing to take a chance to contest the charges such employees thereafter cannot fall back and say that the penalty in their cases cannot be more than the penalty which is imposed upon those employees who accepted the charges at the outset by tendering unconditional apology. 18. This, according to us, would be the harmonious reading of Obettee (P) Ltd. [ Obettee (P) Ltd. v. Mohd. Shafiq Khan , (2005) 8 SCC 46 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 1075] and Rajendra Yadav [ Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. , (2013) 3 SCC 73 : (2013) 1 SCC (L&S) 476 : (2013) 2 Scale 416 ] cases." 35 . Another aspect of the matter is that after the petitioner had been served with the inquiry report, a show cause notice was issued to him asking him to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply pointing out the incongruities in the inquiry report and in the process of inquiry but the disciplinary authority, although indicating about the reply having been submitted by the petitioner on 25.04.2004 yet has failed to consider the same and has dismissed the petitioner from service. 36 . It is settled proposition of law that when a reply has been submitted, the concerned authority is required to apply his mind to the reply submitted by the employee concerned. In this regard, it would be suffice to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Mehrotra Vs. 36 . It is settled proposition of law that when a reply has been submitted, the concerned authority is required to apply his mind to the reply submitted by the employee concerned. In this regard, it would be suffice to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Mehrotra Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2005) 12 SCC 256 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- " 5 . Without going into other issues raised, we are of the view that the impugned order of the respondent authority imposing punishment on the appellant cannot be sustained. Even if we assume that Rule 55-A which pertains to minor punishment was applicable and not Rule 55 which relates to major punishments, nevertheless Rule 55-A requires that the punishment prescribed therein cannot be passed unless the representation made pursuant to Show cause notice has been taken into consideration before the order is passed. There is nothing in the impugned order which shows that any of the several issues raised by the appellant in his answer to the show cause notice were, in fact, considered. No reason has been given by the respondent authority for holding that the charges were proved except for the ipse dixit of the disciplinary authority. The order, therefore, cannot be sustained and must be and is set aside." 37 . Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2010) 13 SCC 427 has held as under:- " 40 . In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in para 51 of the judgment which are set out below. a. In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. b. A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. d. Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. f. Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. l. Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process. m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737). n. Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford , 2001 EWCA Civ 405 , wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process". 41. In the instant case the appellate order contains reasons. However, absence of reasons in the original order cannot be compensated by disclosure of reason in the appellate order." 38 . Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, it is thus apparent that the impugned order of dismissal is legally invalid and merits to be quashed. 39 . Consequence to the punishment order being quashed on the aforesaid ground is remitting of the matter to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order. However, in the instant case, the petitioner has died during the pendency of the instant petition on 24.12.2010 and has been substituted by his legal heirs. Thus, remand of the matter in such circumstances is not found to be appropriate by this Court. 40 . It this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi vs Union Of India and Ors. , 1995 (6) SCC 749 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in exceptional and rare cases, the High Court can itself impose an appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. Consequently exercising power under Section 226 of the Constitution of India as well as considering the punishment as has been accorded to the other persons in the same episode, the Court is of the view that the punishment of withholding one increment permanently and one censure should be imposed on the petitioner and consequently the said punishment be read for the petitioner with effect from the date of dismissal order i.e. 16.09.2000. 41 . 41 . As regards the grievance that the petitioner has not been paid subsistence allowance since he was suspended on 18.03.1999, the respondents have indicated that the petitioner failed to submit the requisite certificate of not being engaged in any other business or profession in order to get subsistence allowance. In absence thereto and there being a clear stipulation in the suspension order for submission of a certificate and no such certificate having been given by the petitioner consequently no direction can be issued for payment of subsistence allowance. 42 . Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is partly allowed . Impugned order dated 16.09.2020, a copy of which is Annexure-16 to the petition, is quashed. Punishment of withholding one increment permanently and censure would now stand imposed on the petitioner with effect from 16.09.2000. Consequences to follow.