JUDGMENT : (Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the case file. 2. Petitioner is serving as Driver in the respondent- Corporation. FIR No. 214 of 2025, was registered on 25.08.2015, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 332, 333, 506 and 355 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3(i)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 at Police Station Sarkaghat, District Mandi, H.P. There were nine accused persons in the FIR including present petitioner. 3. The respondent-Corporation initiated separate departmental proceedings against some of the accused persons. Petitioner was issued memorandum of charges on 05.11.2015 under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 [CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965] for manhandling the Regional Manager Sarkaghat-Sh Jagan Nath. The departmental as well as criminal cases proceeded simultaneously. In the criminal case, an application under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure was moved by the prosecution for withdrawal of the case. The application was allowed by the learned Special Judge Mandi on 25.10.2019. Accused persons were consequently acquitted for the offences for which they had been charged. Petitioner and some other accused persons, who were employees of the respondent-Corporation, were acquitted. Respondent -Corporation, however, continued with the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 09.08.2016 against the petitioner. Based upon the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority passed an office order on 18.07.2019, imposing upon the petitioner penalty of reduction of his pay by three stages in the time scale of pay w.e.f. 1.08.2019 for a period of three years. The petitioner was not to earn any increment on pay during the period. On the expiry of the period, the reduction was to have the effect of postponing petitioner’s future increments. Petitioner feels aggrieved against the imposition of above penalty. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been discriminated by the respondents vis-à-vis other similarly situated persons. That one Sh. Natranjan Kumar, serving as Conductor in the respondent- Corporation, had also been charge-sheeted by the respondent-Corporation under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 18.11.2015 in relation to the same incident. 4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been discriminated by the respondents vis-à-vis other similarly situated persons. That one Sh. Natranjan Kumar, serving as Conductor in the respondent- Corporation, had also been charge-sheeted by the respondent-Corporation under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 18.11.2015 in relation to the same incident. However, the Competent Authority in his case, vide office order dated 01.06.2020, taking note of acquittal of the accused persons by the learned Special Judge, Mandi on 25.10.2019, had only imposed penalty of censure, whereas, petitioner has been discriminated and has been imposed penalty of reduction of increments by three stages with cumulative effect. Learned Senior Counsel also pointed out that another similarly situated person namely Sh. Tara Chand, who was also involved in the same FIR, had been imposed penalty of reduction of his pay by one stage for a period of six months by the Disciplinary Authority. This penalty was affirmed by the Appellate and Reviewing Authority. In Tara Chand Vs. Director Road Transport Corporation, CWPOA No. 3265 of 2020 decided on 22.07.2022 it was held that no reasons had been assigned by the Reviewing Authority for imposing the penalty. The order passed by the Reviewing Authority was in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority, were quashed and set aside. The petitioner, therein, had been held entitled to all consequential benefits. Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the petitioner is similarly situated as the aforesaid S/Sh. Natranjan Kumar and Tara Chand. 5. It appears from the record that the petitioner had also availed remedy of statutory appeal for challenging the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 18.07.2019. His appeal was rejected by the appellate Authority on 15.06.2020. Against the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, the petitioner has now preferred a Revision Petition under Rule 29 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 for quashing the penalty imposed upon him. The said Revision Petition is still stated to be pending before the Competent Authority. Since the petitioner’s Revision Petition is still pending consideration before the Competent Authority, it will not be appropriate, at this stage, to consider the prayer of the petitioner on merits of the matter. The said Revision Petition is still stated to be pending before the Competent Authority. Since the petitioner’s Revision Petition is still pending consideration before the Competent Authority, it will not be appropriate, at this stage, to consider the prayer of the petitioner on merits of the matter. However, the grounds taken by the petitioner in this writ petition viz his having been discriminated vis-à-vis similarly situated employees of the respondent-Corporation, more particularly S/Sh. Natrajan Kumar and Tara Chand and the assertions, that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as also by the Appellate Authority are devoid of any reasons are required to be looked into by the Revisional Authority while considering the Revision Petition. Ordered accordingly. Petitioner’s Revision Petition against the penalty imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority on 18.07.2019 as affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 15.06.2020 be decided in accordance with law, within four weeks, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Petitioner is at liberty to place further material within ten days in support of his revision petition. The order so passed be also communicated to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.