Court sets aside pension penalty, emphasizes parity in penalties. Petitioner granted full pension entitlement.

The High Court set aside the penalty imposed on the petitioner, which included a 20% cut in monthly pension for five years, due to lack of parity with the co-accused, Mr. S.C. Saxena. The Court emphasized that similar charges should result in similar penalties unless distinguishing features exist. The petitioner was granted entitlement to full pension on superannuation with arrears to be paid within two months, with interest at 9% per annum if delayed. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty imposed on the petitioner.
2. Entitlement to parity with the exoneration of the co-accused, Mr. S.C. Saxena.

Summary:

Issue 1: Legality of the Penalty Imposed on the Petitioner
The petitioner, while working as AEN, was charge-sheeted on October 29, 1997, with four charges of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer initially found the charges proved, but upon further inquiry, found them not proved. The Disciplinary Authority disagreed and imposed a penalty of a 20% cut in the petitioner's monthly pension for five years. The Tribunal upheld this decision, concluding that the prescribed procedure was followed during the disciplinary action.

Issue 2: Entitlement to Parity with Co-Accused Mr. S.C. Saxena
The petitioner argued for exoneration based on the exoneration of Mr. S.C. Saxena, who faced similar charges. The Tribunal noted that the circumstances of Mr. Saxena and the petitioner were different, and thus, parity did not exist. The Tribunal agreed with the Disciplinary Authority's findings that the misconduct magnitude differed between the two.

Court's Analysis and Decision:
The High Court compared the charges against both the petitioner and Mr. Saxena, noting that the misconduct was allegedly committed in connivance. The court observed that if Mr. Saxena was exonerated, the petitioner should not be treated differently. The court highlighted the Supreme Court's principle that similar charges should result in similar penalties unless distinguishing features exist. The court found no dissimilarity in the cases of the petitioner and Mr. Saxena and criticized the authorities for not considering the same mitigating factors for the petitioner as they did for Mr. Saxena.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the penalty order dated August 12, 2009, and the Tribunal's order dated February 18, 2011. The petitioner was entitled to full pension on superannuation, with arrears to be paid within two months, failing which interest at 9% per annum would apply. The writ petition was allowed with no costs.

---