2013 (2) TMI 930 - SC - Indian Laws

Appellant reinstated after receiving harsher punishment than co-accused with greater culpability in illegal gratification case

Rajendra Yadav Versus State of M.P. & Others

SC allowed appeal involving illegal gratification case where appellant and co-accused were involved in same incident. Court found co-accused Arjun Pathak ... Seeking to modify the punishment of removal from service - illegal gratification - demoted from the post of A.S.I. to Head Constable - Appellant and Jagdish Prasad Tiwari were dismissed from service - Doctrine of Equality - HELD THAT:- We have gone through the inquiry report placed before us in respect of the appellant as well as Constable Arjun Pathak. The inquiry clearly reveals the role of Arjun Pathak. It was Arjun Pathak who had demanded and received the money, though the tacit approval of the appellant was proved in the inquiry. The charge levelled against Arjun Pathak was more serious than the one charged against the appellant. Both appellants and other two persons as well as Arjun Pathak were involved in the same incident. After having found that Arjun Pathak had a more serious role and, in fact, it was he who had demanded and received the money, he was inflicted comparatively a lighter punishment. At the same time, appellant who had played a passive role was inflicted with a more serious punishment of dismissal from service which, in our view, cannot be sustained. We are of the view the Doctrine of Equality also applies to the facts of the present case. We have indicated that the action of the Disciplinary Authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment to the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher punishment to the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in service forthwith. Appellant is, therefore, to be re-instated from the date on which Arjun Pathak was re-instated and be given all consequent benefits as was given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs. Issues:1. Dismissal of a Police Constable from service for alleged misconduct and acceptance of illegal gratification.2. Discrepancy in punishment imposed on co-delinquents involved in the same incident.3. Application of the Doctrine of Equality in disciplinary proceedings.Issue 1: Dismissal of Police Constable for Misconduct:The appellant, a Police Constable, was charged with accepting Rs.3,000 for not implicating certain persons in a criminal case. Despite denying the allegations, a detailed inquiry was conducted, resulting in conflicting findings. The Superintendant of Police found the charge proved, leading to dismissal along with another constable, while a demotion was imposed on the third individual involved. The appellant's subsequent appeal and writ petitions were dismissed, prompting the Supreme Court to review the case.Issue 2: Discrepancy in Punishment Among Co-Delinquents:The appellant argued that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate as the inquiry revealed that another constable, Arjun Pathak, had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification. Arjun Pathak, despite a more serious role, received a lighter punishment of compulsory retirement with a reduction in increments. The Court noted the disparity in punishments and emphasized the importance of maintaining parity among co-delinquents involved in the same incident.Issue 3: Application of the Doctrine of Equality:The Supreme Court applied the Doctrine of Equality, emphasizing that even guilty parties should receive equal treatment in punishment imposition. Citing precedents, the Court highlighted the need for consistency in disciplinary actions, especially when multiple individuals are involved in the same misconduct. Relying on previous judgments, the Court concluded that the appellant's dismissal was unjustified given the disparity in punishments among those involved in the incident.In conclusion, the Supreme Court set aside the dismissal of the appellant, reinstating him in service with all consequent benefits from the date of reinstatement of the co-delinquent constable. The Court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining equality and parity in disciplinary proceedings, ensuring fair treatment among individuals facing similar allegations.