1 CGHC010034172021 2026:CGHC:37688 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 1132 of 2021  Sunil Sharma S/o Late Shri HK Sharma Aged About 51 Years R/o Qtr. No. D/13, Subash Block SECL Korba (Chhattisgarh) Presently Working As Accountant At SECL Manikpur Colliery, Korba Area, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) ... Petitioner versus 1. South Eastern Coalfield Limited Through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director Bilaspur District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) 2. The Cheif General Manager, SECL Korba Area, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 3. The General Manager, SECL Korba Area, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4. The Deputy General Manager (Mining)/ SAM Manikpur Colliery, Korba Area, District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 5. The Senior Manager Manikpur Colliery, Korba Area District Korba (Chhattisgarh) 6. The Director Personnel, SECL Head Quarter Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate For Respondents : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.08 .2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to passing of the order impugned Annexure P-12 for the kind SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2026.08.24 15:25:04 +0530 2 perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2 The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to set aside the order dated 14.07.2020 (ANNEXURE P-13), in the interest of justice and further to set aside entire into departmental proceedings which culminated imposition of the major penalty. 10.3 That the Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue a writ of mandamus issuing direction to the respondent to give the seniority, promotion, salary and other consequential benefits from the date of the imposition of the penalty after the termination of the order. 10.4 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.5 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the present case are that the petitioner was working on the post of Accountant under the respondent authorities. The co-delinquent employee namely K.S. Thakur was also working on the post of Accountant under the respondents. The petitioner and Mr. K.S. Thakur cleared bills of Dhruv Guard Private Limited for period from 01.06.2012 to 31.05.2013 and 31.12.2010 to 31.05.2012 respectively. The petitioner and Mr. K.S. Thakur were charge-sheeted for their misconduct according to clause 26.1, 26.5 and 26.22 of standing order. Article of charge was issued to the petitioner on 21.11.2014. The petitioner filed reply on 25.11.2014 and after completion of departmental enquiry, major penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect was inflicted by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 04.02.2016. The co-delinquent employee Mr. K.S. Thakur was given penalty of withholding of one increment without cumulative effect vide order dated 09.02.2016. Thereafter, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the 3 Deputy General Manager, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.03.2016 on technical grounds. Further, second appeal was preferred before the General Manager, which was dismissed vide order dated 15.06.2018, and subsequently, review petition was dismissed by the respondent No. 1 vide order dated 14.07.2020. 3. Mr. Vikram Sharma, Advocate would argue that when allegations against the petitioner and co-delinquent employee K.S. Thakur were same though they were subjected to departmental enquiry by different disciplinary authorities in different set of regulations, but they should have punished equally. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Rajendra Yadav vs. State of M.P. reported in AIROnline 2013 SC 174, State of Uttar Pradesh and Others vs. Raj Pal Singh reported in (2010) 5 SCC 783 and Naresh Chandra Bharadwaj vs. Bank of India and Others reported in (2019) 15 SCC 786. He would pray to allow this petition. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondents would oppose. Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate would submit that allegations against the petitioner and co-delinquent employee were almost same, but they were subjected to departmental enquiry by different disciplinary authorities under different set of rules. He would submit that case of Mr. K.S. Thakur cannot be equated with the allegations made against the petitioner. He would contend that the order passed by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner has been affirmed up to revisional authority and concurrent findings have been recorded by those authorities. He would also submit that withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is a minor penalty 4 according to the standing order of SECL. He would contend that this petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. In the matter of Raj Pal Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that disciplinary authority should not impose different punishments for different delinquents when allegations are almost similar. Relevant para 5 is reproduced herein-below :- “5. Though, on principle the ratio in aforesaid cases would ordinarily apply, but in the case in hand, the High Court appears to have considered the nature of charges leveled against the five employees who stood charged on account of the incident that happened on the same day and then the High Court came to the conclusion that since the gravity of charges was the same, it was not open for the disciplinary authority to impose different punishments for different delinquents. The reasoning given by the High Court cannot be faulted with since the State is not able to indicate as to any difference in the delinquency of these employees.” 7. In the matter of Rajendra Yadav (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. It is also held that person who has been found guilty can claim equality of treatment. Relevant para 12 & 13 are reproduce 5 herein-below :- “12. The Doctrine of Equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them 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 co- delinquents 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. The Disciplinary Authority exonerated two other constables, but imposed the punishment of dismissal from service on Dasayan and that of compulsory retirement on Head Constable. This Court, in order to meet the ends of justice, substituted the order of compulsory retirement in place of the order of dismissal from service 6 on Dasayan, applying the principle of parity in punishment among co-delinquents. This Court held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah case (supra), the workman was dismissed from service for proved misconduct. However, few other workmen, against whom there were identical allegations, were allowed to avail of the benefit of voluntary retirement scheme. In such circumstances, this Court directed that the workman also be treated on the same footing and be given the benefit of voluntary retirement from service from the month on which the others were given the benefit.” 8. In the matter of Naresh Chandra Bharadwaj (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court summarized the principles discussed in the matter of Lucknow K.Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, U.P.Gramin Bank) & Anr vs Rajendra Singh reported in AIR 2013 S C 3540, wherein para 19.5 states that there should be equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co- delinquent employee are equally placed and there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after service of charge sheet. Relevant para 6 is reproduced herein-below :- 6. There is really no difference in the proposition, which is sought to be propounded except that in the latter judgment the principles have been succinctly summarised in the last paragraph of the judgment, which read as 7 under: (Lucknow K.Gramin Bank, SCC p. 382, para 19) “19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as follows: 19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities. 19.2. The Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority. 19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the Court. 19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The Court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case. 19.5. The only exception to the principle stated 8 in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct was identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge sheet in the two cases. If co-delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with unqualified apology lesser punishment to him would be justifiable.” (emphasis supplied) 9. Now coming to the facts of the present case, the petitioner and co-delinquent employee both were posted on the post of Accountant. The department noticed some irregularity in bill clearance, and on complaint of Dhruv Guard Private Limited, departmental enquiry was initiated against both the employees. The departmental enquiries were conducted separately against both the delinquent employees, but allegations against them were almost similar. The petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, whereas co-delinquent employee Mr. K.S. Thakur was inflicted with penalty of stoppage of one increment with non- cumulative effect. 10. It is argued by Mr. Agrawal that penalty of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect is a minor penalty according to the standing order, but the 9 petitioner has not challenged the quantum of penalty rather he has claimed equal treatment with the co-delinquent employee Mr. K.S. Thakur. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above-referred cases categorically held that doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed; even among persons who are found guilty. It is also held that a person who has been found guilty can claim equality of treatment. 12. Having considered the facts of the present case and law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in above-referred matters, in opinion of this Court, the respondent authorities should have inflicted penalty of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect upon the petitioner, which was inflicted upon Mr. K.S. Thakur. 13. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of and matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to take appropriate decision in light of observations made herein-above. The exercise shall be completed by the competent authority within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 14. With the aforesaid observation(s), and direction(s), the instant petition is hereby disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE $iddhant