Parity in disciplinary proceedings requires equal treatment of similarly placed delinquents; unequal punishment was set aside.

In disciplinary proceedings arising from the same transaction and alleged connivance, unequal treatment of similarly placed delinquent employees was held impermissible where no real distinction in culpability, responsibility, or duties was shown. The Court found that factors used to exonerate the co-delinquent, including the prolonged duration of proceedings and the comparative nature of the misconduct, applied equally to the other officer. In the absence of a valid basis for differentiation, the penalty was discriminatory and arbitrary. The penalty order was set aside, and parity with the co-delinquent was recognised, with entitlement to full pension and consequential arrears.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalty imposed in departmental proceedings was sustainable when a co-delinquent, on the same set of facts and alleged connivance, had been exonerated and the authority had treated the cases as different.

Analysis: The charges against both officers arose from the same transaction and proceeded on the allegation that they acted in connivance. The Court held that, where the gravamen of misconduct is common and no real distinguishing feature in responsibility, duties, or culpability is shown, the disciplinary authority cannot impose unequal consequences on similarly placed delinquents. The factors relied upon to drop proceedings against the co-delinquent, including the long duration of proceedings and the comparative nature of the alleged misconduct, were equally relevant to the petitioner. In the absence of any valid basis for differentiation, the penalty was found to be discriminatory and contrary to the principle of equal treatment.

Conclusion: The penalty order was unsustainable and was set aside; the petitioner was held entitled to parity with the co-delinquent and to full pension with consequential arrears.

Ratio Decidendi: Where two delinquent employees are proceeded against on the same factual foundation and no material distinction in culpability or responsibility is shown, parity in disciplinary outcome is required and unequal punishment is arbitrary.

---