- (1.) Heard the counsel for the parties.
(2.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27.4.2009 passed in W.P.(S) No. 1553 of 2004 whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. For better appreciation, the impugned judgment reads as under: "In the instant writ petition the petitioner prays for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 23.6.2003 passed by respondent No.2 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service on the ground that he misbehaved with the passenger having a valid ticket and he was subjected to police cruelty and also for quashing of the appellate order dated 12.2.2004 issued under memo No.67 by respondent No.3 whereby and whereunder appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and confirmed the order of the respondent No.2. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that in a similar charge another person was given a lesser punishment. He also submits that punishment of dismissal and removal was disproportionate. I have considered the pleadings and rival submissions and the admitted fact remains that all the three authorities had given a concurrent findings of fact and the opportunity was given to the petitioner including the second show cause and thus, it would not be appropriate to re-appreciate or reconsider the matter in the writ jurisdiction. As regards the similar charges of another person and being awarded lesser punishment, it is well settled that one wrong does not make another wrong to be right and even the charge sheet has not been filed. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed."
(3.) Mr. Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and also the order of punishment mainly on the ground that departmental proceeding was initiated against two constables having similar allegations but against one of the constable lesser punishment had been imposed by withholding two annual increment but in case of the appellant harsh punishment was imposed by dismissing him from service. This court, on the last date after hearing the parties, directed the State counsel to seek instruction as to why such disproportionate and discriminate punishment has been awarded so far the appellant is concerned.;