9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... usively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority, but, an exception is carved out therein to the effect that if the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct was identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges, then the Court is at liberty to interfere with the punishment. In such case, instead of remitting the matter back, the Court can substitute a suitable punishment. The writ petitioner is entitled for the similar treatment, that has been extended to N.Subramanian and after passage of time, remitting the matter again to the authorities would not serve any purpose. Thus, directing the authorities to modify the punishment imposed on the wr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s from the teachers for PF loan, the accused persons issued proceedings by preparing bill entries and took cash from the bank without disbursing the same to the concerned teachers. The amount so misappropriated was pegged at Rs.2,98,547/- and therefore, the criminal prosecution was initiated and the same ended in conviction, thereby, sentencing the writ petitioner and others to undergo two years imprisonment with appropriate fine amounts. On appeal, the appellate court, namely, Fast Track Court, Gopichettipalayam, affirmed the conviction and sentence on 13.02.2003. He preferred revision petition in Crl. R.C. No. 221 of 2003 and this Court vide order dated 19.03.2004, modified the sentence of imprisonment into the one of fine of Rs.50,000/-. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disciplinary proceedings against him was concluded by the Director of Elementary Education and thus, two different authorities passed two different orders with respect to the two delinquents, and such exercise of power cannot be found fault with. It is also contended that this Court in the criminal revision case confirmed the conviction of the writ petitioner and only modified the sentence imposed on him and therefore, there is no reason for the appellate authority to modify the punishment of removal from service, as has been prayed by the writ petitioner. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/ writ petitioner contended that the writ petitioner and two other coaccused have been tried for the same set of allegations ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st and hence, order in his appeal was passed by the Director of Elementary Education modifying the punishment imposed against him to one of compulsory retirement. 8. This Court is of the view that for the same set of allegations, though the accused were tried by the Court in its criminal jurisdiction and all the three have been given similar punishment, in the disciplinary proceedings at the appeal stage, the writ petitioner alone was treated differently, which is impermissible. The reason attributed for such discrimination being that the two different authorities exercised the appellate jurisdiction cannot hold water, as has been held by the learned Single Judge, for the simple reason that the doctrine of equality is applicable to all s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uct of the employee post the incident. It is the latter aspect which is sought to be advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the judgment in Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. (2013) 3 SCC 73. On this very aspect the learned counsel for the respondents drew out attention to a subsequent judgment in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372, which had taken note of the earlier judgment referred to aforesaid. 6. There is really no difference in the proposition, which is sought to be propounded except that in the latter judgment the principles have been succinctly summarised in the last paragraph of the judgment, which read as under: 19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-sheet in the two cases. If co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable. (emphasis supplied) 7. The principle, thus culled out, is that remitting a matter on the issue of quantum of punishment would be as set out in para 19.5 aforesaid of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372, i.e. where a co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more seri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
