IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2235 of 2021

======================================================

Karam Jeet, Son of Surya Pal, Resident of Village- Pure Subba Pandey,

Naupur, P.S.- Jamoh, District- Amethi (Uttar Pradesh).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The East Central Railway through its General Manager, Hazipur,

2.The Director General, Railway Protection Force, Rail Bhavan, Railway

Board, New Delhi.

3.The Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPSF, Railway Board, New

Delhi.

4.The D.I.G.-cum-Chief Security Commissioner, RPSF, Daya Basti, New

Delhi.

5.The Deputy Security Commissioner, East Central Railway-cum-

Commandant, 11BN/RPSF/Garhara.

6.The Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force,

East Central Railway, Danapur.

7.The Assistant Commandant I/C, 11BN/RPSF/Garhara.

8.The Inspector A Coy, 11BN/RPSF/GHZ-cum-Inquiry Officer, Railway

Protection Force, Garhara.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

with

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3099 of 2021

======================================================

Kamlesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Ravindra Yadav, R/o Village-Salarpur, P.S.-

Karuda, Ghazipur, District-Ghazipur (Uttar Pradesh)

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The East Central Railway through its General Manager, Hazipur.

2.The Director General, Railway Protection Force, Rail Bhavan, Railway

Board, New Delhi.

3.The Principal Chief Security Commissioner, RPSF, Railway Board, New

Delhi.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

2/31

4.The D.I.G.-Cum-Chief Security Commissioner, RPSF, Daya Basti, New

Delhi.

5.The Deputy Security Commissioner, East Central Railway-Cum-

Commandant, 11BN/RPSF/Garhara.

6.The Senior Divisional Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Force,

East Central Railway, Danapur.

7.The Assistant Commandant I/C, 11BN/RPSF/Garhara

8.The Inspector 'A' Coy, 11BN/RPSF/GHZ-Cum-Inquiry Officer, Railway

Protection Force, Garhara.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance :

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2235 of 2021)

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Adv.

For the UoI : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Adv.

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3099 of 2021)

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Adv.

For the UoI : Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, Adv.

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 06-08-2026

Heard Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior

Advocate, along with Mr. Ram Binod Singh, learned Advocate

for the petitioners, and Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, learned Advocate

appearing on behalf of the Union of India, in both the cases.

2. Considering that both the writ petitions arise out of

identical facts, emanate from the same memorandum of charges,

and culminated in the identical punishment of dismissal from

service, this Court, with the consent of the parties, heard the

matters together and proposes to dispose of the same by this

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

3/31

common order.

3. The petitioners were duly appointed as Constables

in the Railway Protection Special Force (RPSF) in the year

2015. At the relevant point of time, they were posted at ‘E’ Coy,

11BN/RPSF/GHZ (Garhara). It so happened that on 25.02.2018,

one Mukesh Chand Tyagi, Assistant Commandant, while on

election duty at Mini Secretariat, Mawkyrwat, South West Khasi

Hills, Meghalaya, was shot dead by Constable Arjun Deshwal

by indiscriminate firing from his service weapon. The said

Arjun Deshwal was immediately apprehended and handed over

to the local police, whereupon an FIR was instituted against

him.

4. The aforesaid incident received widespread

attention on various social media platforms, including

WhatsApp and Facebook. Several videos, photographs and

comments were circulated in support of the said Arjun Deshwal.

Allegedly, the circulation of a video clip containing the informal

confessional statement of Constable Arjun Deshwal generated

emotional disaffection amongst the members of the Force. It is

alleged that some members of the Force attempted to garner

support for Arjun Deshwal and extended monetary assistance to

him through WhatsApp groups, Facebook and other social

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

4/31

media platforms. According to the respondents, such

undesirable acts incited gross disaffection amongst the members

of the Force, adversely affected discipline and camaraderie, and

brought disrepute to the image of the Force, thereby

undermining its discipline and organizational culture.

5. The aforesaid incident led to a preliminary enquiry,

wherein it was alleged that the petitioner in CWJC No. 2235 of

2021 induced other members of the Force to extend moral and

financial support to the accused and himself contributed a sum

of Rs.1,000 through the BHIM App from his salary account.

Similarly, it was alleged that the petitioner in CWJC No. 3099

of 2021 shared a video clip on his Facebook account requesting

his friends to contribute Rs.200 each towards the support of the

accused by providing the bank account details into which the

contributions were to be deposited.

6. In order to ascertain the involvement of the

petitioners, a discreet enquiry was conducted, and the Enquiry

Officer submitted his report confirming their alleged

involvement. During the enquiry, both the petitioners are stated

to have admitted that they had contributed the aforesaid

amounts.

7. On the basis of the allegations and the preliminary

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

5/31

enquiry report, separate memorandum of charges dated

10.04.2018, bearing Letter Nos. 1285 and 1286 respectively,

were issued under the signature of the Assistant Commandant.

The petitioners were charged with having committed serious

misconduct by breaching discipline, violating the prescribed

code of conduct for members of the Force, encouraging and

promoting indiscipline within the Force, and intentionally

inciting disaffection amongst its members, in contravention of

Section 18 of the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, read with

Section 3 of the Police (Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922,

and Rule 146 of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987. It

was further alleged that the conduct of the petitioners amounted

to the commission of offences under Section 3 of the Police

(Incitement to Disaffection) Act, 1922, and violated Rule 147(i),

(ii), (xv), (xxi) and (xxii) of the Railway Protection Force Rules,

1987, rendering them liable for punishment under Section 9 of

the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957.

8. During the departmental enquiry, several witnesses

were examined and documentary evidence was adduced. Both

the petitioners, however, explained that they had become

emotional after reading the messages and comments and

watching the videos circulated on social media. According to

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

6/31

them, being misguided and without appreciating the

consequences of their actions, they transferred the meager

amounts in question.

9. The petitioner in CWJC No. 2235 of 2021 further

stated that the amount contributed by him was credited back to

his account on the very next day. He expressed remorse for his

conduct and stated that after his mobile number became viral, he

started receiving numerous phone calls and messages, due to

which he became frightened and eventually broke his SIM card.

10. The petitioner in CWJC No. 3099 of 2021, in his

defence, submitted that acting upon incorrect information

circulated in the name of the accused, he deposited the amount

and shared the message on his Facebook account, which he

subsequently deleted upon realizing his mistake.

11. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding

that the conduct of the petitioners had the tendency to incite

disaffection amongst the members of the Force and accordingly

found the charges proved against them.

12. Thereafter, the In-charge Assistant Commandant,

vide Letter No. 3021 dated 08.08.2018 and Letter No. 3062

dated 10.08.2018, issued second show-cause notices to the

respective petitioners enclosing the enquiry report and

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

7/31

proposing the imposition of a major penalty.

13. In response, the petitioners submitted their

respective replies reiterating the explanation furnished during

the enquiry. They stated that, having rendered only a short

period of service, they lacked the maturity to properly

appreciate the consequences of their conduct and, therefore,

prayed for mercy. They further categorically asserted that

throughout their service they had always maintained discipline,

respected the ethos of the Force, and endeavoured to promote

harmony and camaraderie amongst its members. They also

stated that they neither knew Arjun Deshwal personally nor had

any concern with him, and that whatever they had done was

merely under an emotional impulse and on account of being

misled by the material circulated on social media.

14. The Disciplinary Authority, vide Memo Nos. 138

and 139, both dated 11.01.2019, imposed upon the petitioners

the penalty of removal from service. The appeals preferred by

the petitioners were also rejected vide orders dated 20.03.2019,

which were communicated to them through Letter Nos. 896 and

897 issued by the Adjutant on 30.03.2019. Thereafter, the

petitioners preferred revision petitions before the Principal

Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection Special

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

8/31

Force, which too came to be rejected vide orders dated

28.06.2019. The mercy petitions preferred before the Director

General, Railway Protection Force, were also dismissed vide

orders dated 24.08.2020 and 26.09.2020, respectively.

15. Aggrieved by the memorandum of charges, the

enquiry report, the orders of removal from service, and the

orders passed in appeal, revision and mercy petition, the

petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of

an appropriate writ, particularly in the nature of certiorari, for

quashing the same.

16. Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the petitioners, while assailing the

impugned orders, primarily contended that the petitioners were

appointed to the post of Constable by the Deputy Security

Commissioner-cum-Commandant, whereas the memorandum of

charges was issued by the In-charge Assistant Commandant,

who was admittedly subordinate to the appointing authority. It

is, therefore, submitted that the memorandum of charges itself is

wholly without jurisdiction, having been issued by an authority

not competent to initiate the disciplinary proceedings.

17. Learned Senior Advocate further submitted that,

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

9/31

notwithstanding the aforesaid jurisdictional defect, the

punishment of removal from service was ultimately imposed by

the Deputy Security Commissioner. Significantly, while passing

the order of punishment, the Deputy Security Commissioner

himself recorded that the In-charge Assistant Commandant,

being the disciplinary authority, was not competent to impose

the major penalty of removal from service and, therefore,

referred the matter to the competent authority in terms of the

provisions of the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987.

According to the learned Senior Advocate, this itself clearly

establishes that the In-charge Assistant Commandant lacked the

requisite jurisdiction even to initiate the disciplinary

proceedings by issuing the memorandum of charges. It is further

contended that once the disciplinary proceedings had been

initiated by the In-charge Assistant Commandant, who was

competent only to impose minor penalties, it necessarily follows

that the proceedings were initiated only for the purpose of

awarding a minor punishment. In such circumstances, after

submission of the enquiry report, the matter could not have been

referred to the appointing authority for the imposition of a major

penalty without first altering or amending the original

memorandum of charges in accordance with law.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

10/31

18. Learned Senior Advocate next submitted that a

bare reading of the statement of imputations of misconduct

would demonstrate that the petitioners had not committed any of

the offences alleged under the provisions of the Railway

Protection Force Act, 1957 or the Railway Protection Force

Rules, 1987. At best, the petitioners themselves were

emotionally swayed by the material circulated on social media

and contributed a meager amount towards the family of the

accused. Mere transfer of a nominal amount into the account of

a person, without any statement, message or conduct inciting

disaffection or encouraging indiscipline amongst the members

of the Force, cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed

as an act of inducing others against the Government

establishment or the Force or as constituting a breach of

discipline. It is further argued that, for the very same incident,

several other Constables posted at different places were also

subjected to departmental proceedings. Three such Constables,

namely, Devendra Singh, Yogendra Singh and Vinish Kumar,

were initially awarded the punishment of dismissal from

service. However, in their respective appeals, the Appellate

Authority modified the punishment to a much lesser penalty, as

a consequence whereof they were reinstated in service. It is,

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

11/31

therefore, submitted that the petitioners have been subjected to

hostile discrimination despite standing on an identical footing,

thereby violating the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution

of India.

19. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court

that the Railway Protection Force framed specific guidelines

regulating the use of social media by RPF personnel only on

11.08.2020, whereby members of the Force were prohibited

from circulating or exchanging objectionable or provocative

messages through social media platforms. Admittedly, no such

guidelines or circular were in existence on the date of the

alleged misconduct when the petitioners, according to the

respondents themselves, had merely been swayed by the

provocative material circulating on social media.

20. Referring to the statutory provisions relied upon in

the memorandum of charges, learned Senior Advocate

submitted that none of the materials brought on record

constitutes the ingredients of the offences alleged against the

petitioners. It is, therefore, contended that the entire disciplinary

proceedings, commencing from the issuance of the

memorandum of charges and culminating in the orders of

removal from service, as affirmed in appeal, revision and mercy

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

12/31

petition, are wholly unsustainable in law, arbitrary,

disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, and violative of

Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

21. Per contra, Mr. Bindhyachal Rai, learned

Advocate appearing on behalf of the Union of India, refuting the

submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocate for the

petitioners, contended that the petitioners had intentionally

induced other members of the Force to extend moral as well as

financial support to Constable Arjun Deshwal, who had shot

dead the Assistant Commandant on 25.02.2018, by using

various social media platforms with a view to generate

sympathy for the accused. It is submitted that the petitioners not

only transferred money but also posted and circulated

objectionable and provocative messages, thereby encouraging,

supporting and promoting indiscipline within the Force in

contravention of the provisions of the Railway Protection Force

Act, 1957 and the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, as

specifically referred to in the memorandum of charges.

22. Learned Advocate further submitted that, during

the departmental enquiry, the petitioners themselves admitted

their misconduct. Upon consideration of the enquiry report and

having regard to the nature and gravity of the charges proved,

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

13/31

the disciplinary authority found that the punishment warranted

was beyond his competence to impose and, accordingly, referred

the matter to the competent higher authority. Since the

misconduct was of such gravity as to warrant the penalty of

removal from service, the In-charge Assistant Commandant

referred the matter to the Deputy Security Commissioner, who,

upon being satisfied with the findings recorded in the enquiry

report, imposed the punishment of removal from service. The

orders passed by the Appellate Authority, the Revisional

Authority and the authority deciding the mercy petitions also

affirmed the said punishment, finding no merit in the petitioners'

challenge. It is further argued that, in connection with the same

incident, as many as twenty-two personnel were either removed

or dismissed from service. The Railway Protection Special

Force, being an armed Force of the Union, is required to

maintain the highest standards of discipline, which constitute

the very foundation of its functioning. The Department,

therefore, viewed the misconduct with utmost seriousness and

imposed punishment commensurate with the gravity of the

charges established against the delinquent personnel.

23. Learned Advocate for the Union of India, fairly

submitted that, although different disciplinary authorities

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

14/31

dealing with similar allegations may have taken different views

in individual cases, such decisions are rendered in the exercise

of their independent discretion depending upon the facts and

circumstances of each case. One disciplinary authority is not

bound by the decision taken by another, as even a slight

variation in the nature of the charges or the surrounding

circumstances may justify a different conclusion. It is, however,

emphasized that in none of the connected cases, any delinquent

employee was exonerated of the charges.

24. In support of his submissions and while

explaining the limited scope of judicial review in matters of

departmental proceedings, learned Advocate placed reliance

upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of

India & Others v. Ex-Constable Ram Karan, Civil Appeal No.

6723 of 2021. Referring to the said decision, it is contended that

the Supreme Court has cautioned that, particularly in matters

concerning members of disciplined forces, the High Courts

should exercise great restraint while interfering with the

quantum of punishment. It is further submitted that substitution

of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority merely

on the ground of proportionality has been held to be

impermissible, unless the punishment is found to be shockingly

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

15/31

disproportionate or suffers from manifest arbitrariness.

25. This Court has heard the learned Senior

Advocate/Advocate appearing for the respective parties at

length and has anxiously considered the materials available on

record.

26. The foundational facts giving rise to the present

writ petitions are substantially undisputed and, therefore, do not

require reiteration. The principal questions which arise for

consideration and adjudication in the present case are as

follows:

(i) Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated by an

authority competent to impose only a minor penalty can, after

completion of the enquiry, be referred to the higher authority

solely for the purpose of imposing a major penalty?

(ii) Whether a delinquent employee is entitled to

claim parity in the matter of punishment with other similarly

situated employees whose punishment has been modified or

reduced by the Appellate Authority?

(iii) Whether, and to what extent, this Court, in

exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, can interfere with the proportionality of

the punishment imposed in relation to the misconduct proved

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

16/31

against the delinquent employee?

27. This Court shall now proceed to consider the

aforesaid issues one by one in the light of the pleadings of the

parties, the materials available on record, the relevant statutory

provisions, and the precedents governing the field.

Re: Issue No. (i)

(i) Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated by an

authority competent to impose only a minor penalty can, after

completion of the enquiry, be referred to the higher authority

solely for the purpose of imposing a major penalty?

28. It is not in dispute that a memorandum of charges

may be issued either by the appointing authority, the

disciplinary authority or any other authority duly empowered in

that behalf, if the rules applicable permit to do so. In the present

case, the petitioners were admittedly appointed to the post of

Constable by the Deputy Security Commissioner-cum-

Commandant, whereas the memorandum of charges was issued

by the In-charge Assistant Commandant, who was the

disciplinary authority.

28.(i) Rule 152.2 read with Schedule III of the

Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987, expressly provides that a

disciplinary authority competent to impose any of the minor

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

17/31

penalties may institute disciplinary proceedings for the

imposition of any of the major penalties, notwithstanding the

fact that such disciplinary authority is itself not competent to

impose the proposed major penalty.

28.(ii) A plain reading of Schedule III of the Railway

Protection Force Rules, 1987 reveals that, although the In-

charge Assistant Commandant is competent to initiate

disciplinary proceedings, he is not competent to impose the

major penalties of removal or dismissal from service.

28.(iii) There can be no dispute that the initiation of

the departmental proceedings by the In-charge Assistant

Commandant was not without jurisdiction merely because he

lacked the authority to impose a major penalty. However, the

question which falls for consideration is whether, after

completion of the enquiry and after the issuance of the second

show-cause notice by the said authority, the matter could

thereafter be referred to the higher authority for the first time for

the purpose of imposing a major penalty without affording any

further opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee, on

the selfsame charges.

28.(iv) The records reveal that, upon receipt of the

enquiry report, the In-charge Assistant Commandant himself

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

18/31

issued the second show-cause notices to the petitioners. The

subject of the notices although described the proceedings as

those arising out of a major penalty enquiry conducted against

the petitioners. In response thereto, the petitioners submitted

their respective replies before the very same authority. It further

appears that, after considering the replies so submitted, the In-

charge Assistant Commandant came to the conclusion that the

punishment warranted by the proved misconduct was beyond

his competence and, accordingly, referred the matter to the

Deputy Security Commissioner for the imposition of an

appropriate major penalty.

28.(v) Undoubtedly, the statutory rules permit a

disciplinary authority, though not competent to impose a major

penalty, to initiate and conduct disciplinary proceedings.

Nevertheless, once the enquiry stood concluded, the enquiry

report was furnished, and the second show-cause notice was

issued by the disciplinary authority himself, the petitioners

legitimately proceeded on the footing that the proceedings were

being concluded by the said authority. If, thereafter, the

disciplinary authority formed an opinion that the misconduct

established warranted a major penalty beyond his competence,

the requirements of fairness and the principles of natural justice

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

19/31

demanded that the competent authority, before imposing such

major penalty, ought to have issued a fresh notice to the

delinquent employees indicating that the matter had been

referred to him for consideration of a major penalty and

affording them an effective opportunity to make their

representation on the proposed punishment.

28.(vi) No such opportunity was admittedly afforded

in the present case. The petitioners were never put on notice

that, after the conclusion of the enquiry and consideration of

their replies to the second show-cause notices, the matter would

be placed before a higher authority for the imposition of a major

penalty. Consequently, the petitioners were deprived of an

effective opportunity to represent before the authority who

ultimately decided to impose the punishment of removal from

service.

28.(vii) In the considered opinion of this Court, such a

course of action offends the principles of natural justice and fair

play. The petitioners were effectively taken by surprise at the

final stage of the proceedings, without being afforded an

opportunity of hearing before the competent authority on the

question of the proposed major penalty. The procedure adopted,

therefore, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and cannot be

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

20/31

sustained in law. Issue No. (i) is, accordingly, answered in the

aforesaid terms.

Re: Issue No. (ii)

(ii) Whether a delinquent employee is entitled to

claim parity in the matter of punishment with other similarly

situated employees whose punishment has been modified or

reduced by the Appellate Authority?

29. To answer the aforesaid issue, there is no dispute

with regard to the settled legal position that where two sets of

delinquent employees stand on an identical footing, imposition

of different punishments without any distinguishing feature

would be arbitrary and discriminatory, thereby offending the

doctrine of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the

Constitution of India.

29.(i) In Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh

& Ors., (2013) 3 SCC 73, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that

the doctrine of equality applies equally to persons who have

been found guilty in departmental proceedings. It was observed

that even delinquent employees are entitled to equal treatment in

the matter of punishment if they are able to establish that they

were similarly situated and that a discriminatory punishment has

been imposed upon them. The Court further held that parity

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

21/31

amongst co-delinquents ought to be maintained while imposing

punishment and that the disciplinary authority cannot award a

disproportionately severe punishment to one delinquent while

imposing a lesser punishment upon another who was involved

in the very same incident and whose role was identical or

comparable.

29.(ii) The Court, however, clarified that where there

exists a material distinction in the role played by the

delinquents, the nature of misconduct, or any other relevant

circumstance, different punishments may be justified. The

quantum of punishment is primarily within the domain of the

disciplinary and appellate authorities, provided that the

punishment remains commensurate with the gravity of the

misconduct and is not shockingly disproportionate.

29.(iii) Reference may also be made to Anand

Regional Co-operative Oilseed Growers' Union Ltd. v.

Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah, (2006) 6 SCC 548,

wherein one workman was dismissed from service while other

similarly situated workmen, facing identical allegations, were

permitted to avail the benefits of the Voluntary Retirement

Scheme. Holding such differential treatment to be unjustified,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed that the dismissed

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

22/31

employee be extended the same benefit which had been granted

to the other employees.

29.(iv) This Court also takes note of the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Obettee (P) Ltd. v. Mohd. Shafiq

Khan, (2005) 8 SCC 46, wherein it was held that even where

the nature of misconduct is identical, a distinction in punishment

may be justified if one set of employees voluntarily admits the

charges, expresses remorse and seeks leniency, while another set

contests the charges and compels the employer to conduct a full-

fledged enquiry. In such circumstances, the latter category

cannot subsequently claim that the punishment imposed upon

them must necessarily be identical to that imposed upon those

who admitted their guilt and sought mercy at the earliest

opportunity.

29.(v) Keeping in view the aforesaid legal principles

and examining the facts of the present case, this Court finds that

the substance of the charges levelled against the petitioners and

the other delinquent Constables was substantially identical. All

of them were alleged to have posted, forwarded, shared or

commented upon objectionable and provocative messages,

photographs or videos relating to the incident involving

Constable Arjun Deshwal, thereby allegedly promoting

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

23/31

indiscipline within the Force and creating sympathy for the

accused through social media platforms. They were subjected to

departmental proceedings arising out of the same incident and

were initially awarded similar punishments.

29.(vi) It has been brought on record that, in the case

of certain other Constables facing substantially similar charges,

the Appellate Authority modified the punishment of dismissal

and substituted it with a lesser penalty, resulting in their

reinstatement in service. The existence of such orders was also

brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, the Revisional

Authority and even the authority considering the mercy petitions

in the present case. However, the said aspect was neither

considered nor distinguished on any rational basis.

29.(vii) This Court is of the considered opinion that

where co-delinquents are similarly situated and the allegations

against them arise out of the same transaction with no material

distinction in their respective roles, the principle of parity

cannot be ignored while determining the appropriate

punishment. The constitutional guarantee of equality before law

extends even to persons found guilty in disciplinary

proceedings, and any unjustified discrimination in the matter of

punishment would render the decision vulnerable to challenge

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

24/31

under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

29.(viii) Accordingly, this Court holds that a

delinquent employee is entitled to seek parity with similarly

situated co-delinquents, including in respect of the punishment

modified or imposed by the Appellate Authority, provided there

is no distinguishing feature justifying differential treatment.

Issue No. (ii) is answered accordingly.

Re: Issue No. (iii)

(iii) Whether, and to what extent, this Court, in

exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, can interfere with the proportionality of

the punishment imposed in relation to the misconduct proved

against the delinquent employee?

30. The aforesaid issue is no longer res integra. It is

well settled that the quantum of punishment ordinarily falls

within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority and the

scope of judicial review in such matters is limited. The High

Court, while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, does not sit as an appellate authority over

the decision of the disciplinary authority to re-appreciate the

evidence or to substitute its own opinion regarding the

appropriate punishment.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

25/31

30.(i) At the same time, it is equally well settled that

the power of judicial review extends to examining whether the

punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the gravity of the

misconduct proved as to shock the conscience of the Court. If

the punishment is found to be arbitrary, irrational, grossly

excessive or wholly disproportionate to the nature of the

misconduct, the constitutional courts are not powerless and may

interfere in order to prevent manifest injustice.

30.(ii) This Court considers it apposite to recapitulate

the settled principles governing judicial review over the

quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters. In Ranjit

Thakur v. Union of India, (1987) 4 SCC 611, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court held that while the choice of punishment

ordinarily falls within the exclusive domain of the disciplinary

authority, such punishment is nevertheless amenable to judicial

review where it is so disproportionate to the gravity of the

misconduct as to shock the conscience of the Court. The

doctrine of proportionality, it was observed, is an integral part of

judicial review, and the sentence has to suit not merely the

offence but also the offender. The said principle has been

consistently reiterated in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India,

(1995) 6 SCC 749, Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

26/31

SCC 386, and more recently in Union of India v. Dalbir Singh,

(2021) 11 SCC 321, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court

reaffirmed that although constitutional courts do not ordinarily

substitute their own opinion on the quantum of punishment,

interference is warranted where the punishment is arbitrary,

irrational, discriminatory or shockingly disproportionate to the

misconduct proved.

30.(iii) Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts

of the present case, this Court finds that the punishment of

dismissal from service imposed upon the petitioners cannot

withstand the test of proportionality. The petitioners were young

Constables who had rendered only a short period of service. The

materials available on record disclose that they merely

contributed a nominal amount after being emotionally

influenced by messages and videos circulated on social media.

There is neither any allegation nor any finding that the

petitioners participated in any act of violence, instigated mutiny

or indiscipline, incited rebellion against the Force, refused to

obey lawful commands, or obstructed the discharge of official

duties. On the contrary, the record further reveals that during the

departmental proceedings the petitioners candidly admitted their

lapse, expressed remorse, and sought mercy from the

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

27/31

disciplinary authorities.

30.(iv) What assumes greater significance is the

admitted position that, in respect of several other Constables

arising out of the very same incident and charged with

substantially identical allegations, the Appellate Authority

considered it appropriate to modify the punishment of dismissal

into a lesser penalty, thereby permitting their reinstatement in

service. As already discussed while answering Issue No. (ii),

although the principle of equality cannot be invoked to

perpetuate an illegality, parity in the matter of punishment

assumes considerable relevance where the misconduct,

surrounding circumstances and degree of culpability are

substantially similar. The respondents have failed to disclose

any distinguishing feature justifying the imposition of the

extreme penalty of dismissal exclusively upon the present

petitioners.

30.(v) Having regard to the totality of the facts and

circumstances, the nature of the misconduct proved, the conduct

of the petitioners during the enquiry, the absence of any

allegation of active participation in the principal offence, and

the differential treatment accorded to similarly situated co-

delinquents, this Court is of the considered opinion that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

28/31

punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate

to the misconduct established against the petitioners and shocks

the conscience of this Court.

30.(vi) Accordingly, this Court holds that the

impugned punishment warrants interference in exercise of the

power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. Issue No. (iii) is answered accordingly.

31. Having answered the issues framed hereinabove,

this Court is of the considered opinion that the departmental

proceedings culminating in the orders of removal from service

suffer from serious legal infirmities.

32. As discussed in the preceding paragraphs, apart

from the procedural irregularity in the manner in which the

disciplinary proceedings culminated in the imposition of a major

penalty, the Appellate Authority also failed to consider that other

similarly situated delinquent Constables, who were proceeded

against on identical allegations arising out of the very same

incident, were ultimately extended the benefit of a lesser

punishment by the Appellate Authority. The claim of parity

raised by the petitioners, therefore, deserved due consideration

but was ignored by the departmental authorities at every stage.

33. This Court is also of the considered view that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

29/31

punishment of removal from service imposed upon the

petitioners is disproportionate to the misconduct established

against them. The petitioners admittedly contributed only a

meager amount after being emotionally swayed by the material

circulated on social media. Although such conduct undoubtedly

amounted to misconduct warranting disciplinary action, the

extreme penalty of removal from service, particularly when

similarly situated co-delinquents were ultimately awarded lesser

punishment, cannot be sustained.

34. Ordinarily, where the Court finds procedural

infirmities in disciplinary proceedings, the appropriate course

would be to set aside the impugned orders and remit the matter

to the competent authority for fresh consideration. However, the

facts of the present case persuade this Court not to adopt such a

course.

35. The petitioners have remained out of service for a

considerable period. Their removal from service dates back to

11.01.2019 and the present writ petitions have remained pending

before this Court since the year 2021. During the intervening

period, the punishment awarded to other similarly situated co-

delinquents had already been modified by the Appellate

Authority in the year 2019 itself. At this distant point of time,

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

30/31

remanding the matter for a fresh decision would only prolong

the litigation and cause further prejudice to the petitioners

without serving any useful purpose.

36. Accordingly, the orders of removal from service

contained in Memo Nos. 138 and 139, both dated 11.01.2019,

together with the orders passed by the Appellate Authority, the

Revisional Authority and the authority rejecting the mercy

petitions, are hereby set aside.

37. The respondents are directed to reinstate the

petitioners in service forthwith. However, having regard to the

admitted misconduct of the petitioners and the necessity of

maintaining discipline in an armed Force of the Union, this

Court considers it appropriate that the petitioners shall be visited

with the same minor penalty as was ultimately imposed upon

the similarly situated co-delinquents, namely Devendra Singh,

Yogendra Singh and Vinish Kumar, whose appellate orders have

been brought on record as Annexure-13 series. The petitioners

shall also be treated alike co-delinquents in extending all the

consequential benefits, which hav been approved to them. Such

a course would not only meet the ends of justice but would also

ensure parity and uniformity in the matter of punishment

amongst similarly situated members of the disciplined Force.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2235 of 2021 dt.06-08-2026

31/31

38. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand allowed

in the aforesaid terms.

39. There shall, however, be no order as to cost(s)

40. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stands

disposed of.

rohit/-

(Harish Kumar, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE NA

Uploading Date 06-08-2026

Transmission Date