BHERU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Bheru Singh, by this writ petition, has challenged the order dated April 18, 1984 (Annexure.7), passed by the State Government on the recommendation of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, dated December 24, 1983 (Annexure.8), by which the petitioner was held guilty for accepting the bribe and the total pension of the petitioner was stopped.

(2.) The petitioner was working as Sepoy (Guard) in the Excise Department at Doongarpur. A joint enquiry was initiated against the petitioner alongwith Laxmi Chand Chouhan, Excise Inspector, Hari Singh Sepoy, Kallu Khan Sepoy, Tej Singh Sepoy, Deep Singh Sepoy and Panney Singh Sepoy, under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control Appeal) Rules, 1958. The charge against the petitioner and other persons was that they accepted the bribe in the month of June, 1974 in the matter of excise cases investigated by them under the Rajasthan Prohibition Act. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner, after completion of superannuation age, retired from service and, therefore, the enquiry against the petitioner was referred to the State Government under Rule 170(A) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, but so far as the other persons were concerned, the enquiry against them proceeded in the usual way. After the enquiry under Rule 170(A) of the Rajasthan Service Rules, the petitioner was found guilty and on the recommendation of the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Annexure.8), the order Annexure.7 dated April 18, 1984, was passed against the petitioner, by which the total pension of the petitioner was stopped. So far as the enquiry conducted against Laxmi Chand and others Is concerned, they were also found guilty and the Disciplinary Authority Imposed the punishment of dismissal from service upon them. Dissatisfied with the order, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, dismissing Laxmi Chand and others from service, they preferred an appeal before the State Government and the State Government, vide its order dated July 3, 1986, maintained the order, passed by the Disciplinary Authority, so far as holding Laxmi Chand and other guilty and found that the charges against them stand proved, but, however, reduced the punishment from dismissal from service to that to stoppage of three annual grade increment with cumulative effect. As the charges against the petitioner, and the other persons, namely, Laxmi Chand and others, were the same, for which a joint enquiry was held against them, but it is only on account of the retirement of the petitioner that his case was considered by the State Government under Rule 170(A) of the Rajasthan Service Rules and a punishment of stoppage of total pension was imposed against him, but so far as the other persons are concerned, they have been punished with the stoppage of three annual grade increments with cumulative effect.

(3.) Employment under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India does not mean only the initial employment, but subsequent to the employment also, and covers the question regarding imposition of punishment. In order to maintain the faith of the public, the punishment in identical cases must not be uneven and care should be taken for passing even order and there should be no disparity In the matter of punishment in identical cases. When the similarly situated persons, against whom a joint enquiry has been held, have been punished by way of stopping three annual grade increments with cumulative effect, the imposition of the extreme penalty, i.e., the removal of the petitioner from the service, appears to be discriminatory. In my view, therefore, the petitioner should, also, be penalised on the similar lines as Shri Laxmi Narain and others were penalised, as the enquiries against the petitioner and Laxmi Narain and others were for the same charges. The discrimination in Imposing the punishment amongst the similarly situated persons cannot be allowed to sustain.