- (1.) PETITIONER in this writ application has challenged the order of the Appellate Authority, whereby punishment of his dismissal from service, as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, has been upheld.
(2.) SUBSTANCE of charge against the petitioner for which he had faced departmental proceeding, was that on 8.7.1999 when he was attached with the Judicial Magistrate (Railway) for ticket checking duty, he had assumed authority of ticket checking even in absence of Railway Magistrate and began demanding tickets from the passengers who had alighted from the train and had demanded money from those passengers who could not produce tickets. On the complaints made by the passengers, he had allegedly indulged in assault and misbehaviour with them. The petitioner had submitted his written statement in the disciplinary inquiry. Witnesses were examined. The Inquiring Officer after considering evidences on record had found the charges against the petitioner proved. A copy of the Inquiry Report alongwith the second showcause notice was served upon the petitioner, to which he had submitted his written statement in his defence. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the entire aspects of the Inquiry Report, and written statement of the petitioner, imposed punishment of dismissal from service against the petitioner. Against the order of his dismissal, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority had also considered the evidences on record and the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and, by recording its concurrence with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, had dismissed the petitioner's appeal.
(3.) THE petitioner in this writ application has taken several grounds for assailing the impugned orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner however confines his grounds and arguments only to the quantum of punishment. Referring to the Memorandum of Appeal filed by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority, learned counsel submits that the petitioner had specifically pointed out instances of several cases of constables namely, Constable Mritunjay Rana, Constable Suresh Prasad, Constable Dhawk lal Yadav, Constable Ramayan Ram and Havaldar Giridhari Rajak against whom departmental proceedings were initiated on identical charges namely charges of illegal collection of money from the passengers and assaulting the passengers and, all of whom though found guilty of the charges, were awarded punishment of stoppage of increments for two years, but they were not awarded any severe punishment as imposed against the petitioner learned counsel argues that the treatment meted out to the petitioner in the matter of awarding punishment, is apparently discriminatory and the petitioner has been subjected to harsh treatment as compared to other constables of his cadre.;