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

SC allowed appeal involving illegal gratification case where appellant and co-accused were involved in same incident. Court found co-accused Arjun Pathak had more serious role, actually demanding and receiving money, while appellant played passive role with tacit approval. Despite Pathak's greater culpability, he received lighter punishment while appellant was dismissed from service. Applying Doctrine of Equality, SC held disparate punishments for same incident impermissible. Court set aside appellant's dismissal, ordered reinstatement with same benefits given to Pathak from date of his reinstatement.

---

---

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.

---