AKHILESH KUMAR SINGH versus STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 of tampering with records, 
forgery and misconduct- Quantum of punishment-Challenged to, 
c on the ground that co-employee given lighter punishment for 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 of punishment not called for-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. 
E It was contended that in the departmental proceedings one KS was 
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 
G 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 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] 
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. 
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. 
F . 
G 
H 
870 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
2. Appellant herein was working as a writer constable in the Bihar 
" 
A 
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 
B 
an entry in general diary with regard to arrival of S.I. (S), R.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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.