Patna High Court
Karam Jeet vs The East Central Railway on 6 August, 2026
Author: Harish Kumar
Bench: Harish Kumar
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
16/31against 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.
(Harish Kumar, J)
rohit/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 06-08-2026 Transmission Date
