D. N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the appellant (original petitioner), whose writ petition being W.P. (S) no. 4298 of 2003 was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 9th April, 2010 whereby the punishment inflicted upon this appellant of dismissal has been confirmed and hence this original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present appellant is the original petitioner who was appointed as a Constable at Tata Nagar Rail Police Station and duty was assigned to him on platforms of Tata Nagar Railway Station. It further appears from the facts of the case and it also appears from the charge-sheet that on 19th October, 2001 when this appellant was performing his duty on Platform no.1 of the Tata Nagar Railway Station alongwith two other Constables, they demanded illegal gratification of Rs.140/-. Ultimately, a complaint was filed and a criminal case was also instituted and the civil enquiry/departmental enquiry were also initiated. Charge-sheet was issued on 22nd February, 2002 (Annexure-3 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). The Enquiry Officer was appointed and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard Inquiry Officer gave his report that the charges levelled against this appellant has been proved which is for illegal gratification of Rs.140/-. Thereafter, Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment vide order dated 21st September, 2002 after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to this appellant, the said order is at Annexure-4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal and the punishment inflicted upon this appellant by the Disciplinary Authority was of dismissal. Against this order a departmental appeal was preferred by this appellant which was dismissed by the departmental appellate authority vide order dated 14th August, 2003 (Annexure-5 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). Hence, the writ petition was preferred being W.P.(S) no.4298 of 2003 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 9th April, 2010 and hence the original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(3.) Much has been argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that other two constables who were also with this appellant on Platform no.1 at Tata Nagar Railway Station and against whom also the charge-sheet was filed for illegal gratification of Rs.140/-, for them lesser punishment has been inflicted upon. They were punished for the same charge and 5 increments have been withheld and they were demoted to the initial pay-scale of the constables whereas this appellant has been dismissed from the services. Counsel for the appellant has also placed reliance on the decision rendered by the Supreme Court (2013) 3 SCC 73, para-9 and submitted that equality in imposing the punishment should also be maintained by the disciplinary authority. If the other delinquents are sailing in the same boat and lesser punishment is inflicted upon them then no discrimination can be made against this appellant and no higher punishment can be inflicted upon this appellant. It is further submitted by counsel for the appellant that even otherwise also the punishment inflicted upon this appellant for dismissal is shockingly disproportionate and unreasonably excessive. This is against Rule 826 of the Jharkhand Police Manual. We are not accepting this contention mainly for the reasons that:- (a) Lead role was played by this appellant in comparison to the other two delinquents who were with him. (b) Rs.140/- was demanded from a passenger by this appellant and not by the other two delinquents. (c) Thus, the demand was started from this appellant of illegal gratification. Moreover, Rs.140/- was also found out from the possession of this appellant which makes the case of this appellant different from the case of the rest of other two delinquents. (d) This appellant was named in the F.I.R. which is immediate version of the complainant viz.- Bhagwan Das. Of course, this complainant has turned hostile, when the criminal case was proceeded further, against this appellant with which we are no concerned. The fact remains that in the initial version of the complainant, this appellant was named whereas the names of the other two delinquents were not mentioned. (e) This appellant was identified by the complainant.;