Holding

The charges against the appellant and the other constable were not identical; therefore the quantum of punishment need not be the same and the appellate court will not interfere.

Summary

Writer Constable Akhilesh Kumar Singh was charged with tampering official records, forging entries and misappropriating food allowance. A departmental inquiry found him guilty on all counts and dismissed him from service. He appealed, contending that another constable, Kaushal Kumar Singh, faced essentially the same charges but received a much lighter penalty, and therefore the quantum of his punishment was excessive. The Supreme Court held that while similarly situated officers should generally be treated alike, the quantum of punishment depends on the nature and seriousness of the specific charges, and the two officers were not identically charged. Consequently, the Court found no error in the disciplinary authority’s decision and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

Whether the quantum of punishment in departmental proceedings must be identical for officers facing identical charges.
Whether the higher court can interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the appointing authority.

Subjects

service lawdepartmental proceedingsdismissalquantum of punishmentidentical chargesjudicial reviewforgerytampering with recordsfood allowance misappropriation

Judgment

A AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH
v.
STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

DECEMBER 14, 2007
B
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]

Service law-Dismissal-On account oftampering with records,
forgery and misconduct- Quantum ofpunishment-Challenged to,
c on the ground that co-employee given lighter punishmentfor identical
charges-Held: Identical charges against delinquent officers similarly
situated are to be dealt with similarly-On facts, charges leveled
against employees not identical in nature-Thus, interference with
quantum ofpunishment not calledfor-Judicial Review.
D
The appellant-writer constable was charged for tampering with
the records, committing forgery and misappropriating food
allowance. In the Departmental proceedings the appellant was found
guilty and was dismissed from the service. Appellant filed appeal.
It was contended that in the departmental proceedings one KS was
E
also found guilty of identical charges and a lenient view was taken.
Appellant Authority held that the case of the employees was not
similar. Both the writ petition as also the appeal there against were
also dismissed. Hence, the present appeal.

F Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The delinquent officers similarly situated should
be dealt with similarly and, thus if the charges againstthe employees
are identical, it is desirable that they be dealt with similarly. Quantum
of punishment imposed on a delinquent employee by the appointing
G
authority, however, depends upon several factors. Conduct of the
delinquent officers as also the nature of the charges play a vial role "'
in this behalf. [Paras 11and12] [874-A-B]

1.2. The superior courts oflndia exercising power of judicial
H 868
AKHILESHKUMAR SINGH v. ST ATE 869

,.
review, would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of A
punishment. [Para 13] [875-A]

Anand Regional Coop. Oil Seedgrowers' Union Ltd. v.
Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah, [2006] 6 SCC 548 and Director
General of Police & Ors. v. G. Dasayan, [1998] 2 SCC 407,
distinguished. B

2. In the instant case, the appellant was found guilty of
tampering with records and committing forgery. He misappropriated
food allowance. Charge No.1 framed against the appellant was a
serious charge and was found guilty thereof. Being only a Writer c
Constable, he could not have made an entry in the general diary as
regards time of arrival of Company Commander. So far as Charge
No.2 is concerned, he accepted the same. Charge No.3 was proved
against him. The Appellate Authority as also the Single Judge of
High Court opined that the charges leveled against the petitioner D
were serious in nature. KS was found guilty only for claiming food
allowance illegally. Apart from the fact that charge No.1 was a very
serious one and KS having not been charged therewith, it cannot be
said that the appellant and the said KS were similarly situated but
also so far as KS is concerned, charge No.2 had also been partly
proved against him; whereas appellant admitted his guilt in relation E
thereto. Charges against the appellant and KS not being identical
in nature, the impugned judgment does not suffer from any legal
infirmity.
[Paras 11, 12, 13 and 15] (873-G-H; 874-A-C-H; 875-A; 875-A-E]
F .
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5943 of
2007.
From the final Judgment and Order dated 6.12.2005 of the High
Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in L.P.A. No. 113 of2005.
G
Mohan Pandey for the Appellant.
Nitish Massey and Ajit Kumar Sinha for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. I. Leave granted. H
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A 2. Appellant herein was working as a writer constable in the Bihar "
Military Police at Bokaro Steel City. A Departmental proceeding was
initiated against him on the following imputation of charges:
"(1) While he was posted in March 1985 in 'C' Company made
an entry in general diary with regard to arrival of S.I. (S), R.B.
B Sahu, Company Commander on 28.3.1985. Before openiitg
the diary, column in which details ofOhededar and officers
are being filled, he shown presence of S.I. (S) Sahu at the
company head quarter, but on the same day, as per the entry
No.700 his arrival is shown at 8.45 O'clock. This entry
c No.700 was recorded two times, on first time it was 8.45 and
on second time it was at 9.30. Entry No.700 recorded at 8.45
is certainly inserted later on.
(2) According to his statement when he was posted at Dhanbad
with his 'C' Company, he was out from the company
D
headquarter from 14.12.84 to 16.12.84 and from 9.1.85 to
12 . 1.85 as per the order of Company Commander, Sh. Sahu.
Despite the same he shown his presence in Company
Headquarter and claimed for food allowance and obtained the
same.
E
(3) From 'C' Company Aurangabad he was directed by
Command No.227376 with constable 576 Kaushal Kumar
and Vahini Mukhyalaya. He alsong with Constable No.576
Kaushal Kumar returned on 24.3.84, their arrival is shown on
F 26.3.85 at 9.00 a.m. On the voucher of food allowance for
the said period payment was made and obtained which is a
forgery."
3. In the said departmental proceeding, he was found guilty of all
the charges. He admitted the charges in relation to charge No.2. He was
G found guilty of other charges also. The appointing authority, relying on the
report of the Enquiry Officer, passed a final order on or about 31.8.1987 ~

dismissing him from service.
4. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the Director
H General of Police, Bihar, Patna. In the said appeal, one of the contentions
AKHILESHKUMARSINGHv. STATE[SINHA,J.] 871

y
raised by the appellant was that in a departmental proceeding involving A
one Kaushal Kumar who was also found guilty of identical charges, a
lenient view was taken. Appellate authority in its order dated 9.8.1989
in that behalf opined :
"The illustration given by the charge sheeter constable regarding
B
other departmental proceeding No.22/87 of BMP-4 against
constable 576 Kaushal Kumar Singh is wrong. Constable Kaushal
i Kumar Singh has made an effort to raise a voice against the illegal
act of commanding officer of that time. Company Commanding
Police Inspector Ram Bhakt Sahu was punished also. Hence
charge sheeted Constable and Constable 576 Kaushal Kumar c
Singh case is not similar."
5. Appellant, challenging the legality of the said order, filed a writ
petition in the High Court of Judicature at Patna which was marked as
CWJC No.9945of1996. D
'f A learned Single Judge of the said Court dismissed the said writ
petition opining :
"As a matter of fact, Babban Ram was deputed as orderly to the
Deputy Commandant, whereas the petitioner was the Writer E
Constable who was responsible for the entry in the Register
regarding Diet allowances and, therefore, the charges against the
petitioner were grievous in nature and, as such, the punishment
. has been awarded to him considering the gravity of the charges.
•j' The petitioner was provided full opportunity to defend his case F
and the departmental enquiry was held in fair and proper manner.
I have carefully gone through the recommendation of the
Conducting Officer as well as the order passed by the disciplinary
authority as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application and
also the order passed by the appellate authority as contained in G
'f Annexure-8 and 8/1 to the writ application. I find that the learned
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have
carefully examined the materials on record and after appreciation
of evidence, they have come to a definite finding on the basis of
H
872 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

,,
A facts on record that the charges against the petitioner was fully
established and, therefore, he was found to be guilty.
This Court while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226
and 227 of the Constitution oflndia cannot act as an appellate
authority and cannot substitute its own finding over the findings
B
arrived at by the Enquiry Officer and also the order passed by the
disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. The
petitioner has not been able to show that the findings arrived at by
the respondents were perverse or not based on the materials on
record and, therefore, I do not find any material to upset the
c findings arrived at by the respondents.
So far as the quantum of punishment is concerned, I find that
in view of the nature and gravity of the charge, which has been
proved against the petitioner, the punishment for dismissal passed
D by the authorities concerned also needs no interference by this
Court."
"
6. An intra court appeal preferred thereagainst has been dismissed
by a Division Bench of the said Court by reason of the impugned
judgment.
E
7. This Court issued a limited notice stating:
"Counsel submits that for the same misconduct a much lighter
punishment was given to another constable while the punishment

F
of dismissal has been imposed on the petitioner. -,, -
Issue notice on the application for condonation of delay as also
on the Special Leave Petition."
8. Mr. Mohan Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, submitted that the charges levelled against Shri Kaushal Kumar
G Singh were almost identical except the charge No.I. According to the
learned counsel, but as the purported misconduct committed by him but ""
did not result in any personal gains, the disciplinary authority should have
taken a lenient view.

H Our attention has been drawn to the order of punishment imposed
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. STATE [SINHA, J.] 873

upon the said Shri Kaushal Kumar Singh which is to the following effect: A
" "After going through the statement and show cause present in
record and realizing the opinion of Commanding Officer, I accept
the opinion of commanding officer and found him guilty with regard
to charge (1) absolutely and with regard to charge (2) partially.
His illegal absent from 14.12.84 to 16.12.84 and 9.1.85 to 12.1.85 B
and 26.3.85 (totally eight days) will be treated as extraordinary
leave. The allowance money which was paid to him of this period
" shall be deducted from his payable amount and deposited to the
fund. Because he had immediately made a complaint against the
Company Commander and he was found guilty for this sympathy c
his increment in annual salary shall be detained for one year. This
punishment will not affect his future increment. Simultaneously
warning for dismissal is given ifit in future."
9. The learned counsel urged that as a very lenient punishment was D
awarded to Kaushal Kumar Singh, the High Court must be held to have
~
committed a manifest error in not entertaining the writ petition. Reliance
in this behalf has been placed on Director General ofPolice & Ors. v.
-<
G. Dasayan, (1998] 2· SCC 407 and Anand Regional Coop. Oil
,. Seedgrowers' Union Ltd. v. Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah. [2006] E
6 sec 548).
10. Mr. Nitish Massey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the case of the appellant is
not similarly situated to that of the aforesaid Shri Kaushal Kumar Singh
.... as not only no charge like charge No. l was framed against him, but even F
the charge No.2 was only proved particularly in his case. The appellate
Authority, it was submitted, having given cogent and sufficient reason for
not awarding a lesser punishment, this Court should not intetfere therewith.
11. Charge No.I framed against the appellant herein was a serious G
charge. He has been found guilty thereof He tampered with the official
'I records. Being only a Writer Constable, he could not have made an entry
in the general diary as regards time of arrival of Company Commander.
So far as Charge No.2 is concerned, he accepted the same. Charge
No.3 was proved against him. The Appellate Authority as also the learned H
874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R.

A Single Judge, as noticed hereinbefore, opined that the charges levelled ¥

against the petitioner were serious in nature.
It is true that delinquent officers similarly situated should be dealt I~
I

\\-ith similarly and, thus if the charges against the employees are identical,
it is desirable that they be dealt with similarly.
B
12. Quantum of punishment imposed on a delinquent employee by
the appointing authority, however, depends upon several factors. Conduct
..
of the delinquent officers as also the nature of the charges play a vital
role in this behalf. Apart from the fact that charge No. I was a very serious
c one and Shri Kaushal Kumar Singh, having not been charged therewith,
it cannot be said that the appellant and the said Kaushal Kumar Singh
were similarly situated but also as noticed hereinbefore, so far as Kaushal
Kumar Singh is concerned, charge No.2 had also been partly proved
against him; whereas appellant admitted his guilt in relation thereto.
D The enquiry officer in his report categorically held:
"Simultaneously I have gone through attendance register and food ' ,.
allowance register no officer of the company had neither made a
signature nor verified it. It is also horrible that on what basis
E Attendance register and food allowance register had been treated c

as correct. It is necessary that whenever food allowance claim is
being made it should be verified from the register which is not found.
Company Commander given the statement that entry regarding

F
Charge sheeter that he was present on 14.12.84 to 16.12.84 and
9.1.85 to 12.1.85 in the Company was made by the Charge
Sheeter on register by the help of constable 432 Birendera Kumar.
..,, -
Charge Sheeter had not gone any where during that period and
he stated in his statement that on that very day he was outside on
•
the oral order of the Company Commander. It is very difficult to
decide that whose statement should be treated as correct is of
G
charge sheeter or of Commander. Company Commander is the in
charge of the Company. So weightage should be given to his \'
statement. Charge Sheeter certainly made forgery with company
Commander because believing on him he made signature."
H 13. Appellant has, thus, been found guilty of tampering with records
AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH v. ST ATE [SINHA, J.] 875

• and committing forgery. He misappropriated food allowance. ShJi Kaushal A
- Kumar Singh was found guilty only for claiming food allowance illegally.
The superior courts oflndia exercising power ofjudicial review, it is trite,
would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment. Even the
industrial court would not do so as has been noticed by this Court in
Shaileshkumar (supra). In the said case, however, having regard to the B
fact situation obtaining therein, it was held :
"There is, however, another aspect of the matter which cannot be
lost sight of. Identical allegations were made against seven persons.
The management did not take serious note of misconduct
committed by six others although they were similarly situated. They C
were allowed to take the benefit of the voluntary retirement
scheme."
The said decision does not assist the appellant at all.
14. G. Dayasan (supra) is a case where respondent therein as also D
the Head Constable were tried together, but as different punishments having
been imposed upon them although they faced identical charges, this Court
interfered with the quantum of punishment.
15. Such is not the case here. Charges against the appellant and E
Kaushal Kumar Singh being not identical in nature, the impugned judgment
does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
16. The appeal is accordingly dismissed but there shall be no order
as to costs.
F
N.J. Appeal dismissed.