TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (2) TMI 930
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lved in Crime No. 4 of 2002 charged under Sections 341, 294, 323, 506(B), 34 IPC. A complaint to that effect was filed by one Kundan Rajak, a resident of Village Sothia, PS Rahatgarh. Acting on that complaint, the appellant was charge-sheeted, along with two others, vide proceedings dated 6.5.2002 by the Superintendant of Police, Sagar. The following are the charges levelled against the appellant: (1) He demonstrated gross negligence and lack of interest in discharge of his duty by not implicating all the persons involved in the crime. (2) He demonstrated misconduct by accepting Rs.3,000 from the complainant Kundan Rajak for lodging a report in the police station. 3. Appellant filed a detailed reply to the charge-sheet by his letter da....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uent HC was present in the police station during the report of the Crime No. 4/02. As per the evidence, the money was demanded by Ct. Arjun Pathak. The report has been recorded by HC 1104 Rajendra Yadav whereas Rs.3,000/- was paid to Const. Arjun Pathak. Therefore, with regard to receiving money, the participation of HC Rajendra Yadav and his tacit approval are proved with respect to the charge No. 2. At the same time, he could not exercise his control over his subordinate. The money was demanded by Arjun Pathak and upon receipt of the money by Arjun Pathak, HC 1104 Rajendra Yadav lodged the report. Therefore, I am in disagreement with the view of the Inquiry Officer given in the inquiry report of the department inquiry that the charge is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hough, inflicted with the punishment of compulsory retirement was, later, reinstated by imposing punishment of reduction of increment with cumulative effect for one year. The inquiry has clearly established that it was Arjun Pathak who had demanded and accepted the illegal gratification from the complainant, but he has been given a lighter punishment while the appellant was imposed a harsher punishment, which is clearly arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned counsel placed considerable reliance on the judgment of this Court in Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedsgrowers' Union Ltd. V. Shaileshkumr Harshadbhai Shah (2006) 6 SCC 548 and claimed parity, if not fully exonerated. 10. Shri Arjun Garg, learned counsel appearing for the respondent State,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed. Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the involvement of codelinquents who are parties to the same transaction or incident. The Disciplinary Authority cannot impose punishment which is disproportionate, i.e., lesser punishment for serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences. 13. The principle stated above is seen applied in few judgments of this Court. The earliest one is Director General of Police and Others v. G. Dasayan (1998) 2 SCC 407, wherein one Dasayan, a Police Constable, along with two other constables and one Head Constable were charged for the same acts of misconduct. ....