[ad_1]
Jharkhand High Court
Janak Raj Sharma vs Bharat Coking Coal Limited on 9 May, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:14144
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
---------
Janak Raj Sharma, son of Late Om Prakash Sharma, resident of Bhowra,
P.O. & P.S. Bhowra, Dist.-Dhanbad.
… … Petitioner
Versus
1. Bharat Coking Coal Limited, a subsidiary of Coal India Limited having
its Head Office at Koyla Bhawan, P.O. Koyla Nagar, P.S. Saraidhella,
Dist.-Dhanbad through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director.
2. The General Manager, E.J. Area, Bhowra, Bharat Coking Coal Limited,
Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad.
3. The General Manager (Co-ordin.), TS to CMD & PIO, Bharat Coking
Coal Limited, Koyla Bhawan, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad.
4. The Central Information Commission through its Under Secretary &
Assistant Registrar, 2nd Floor, ‘B’ Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji
Cama Place, New Delhi-110066.
....... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
———-
For the Petitioner : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Resp.-BCCL : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Pratyush, Advocate
Ms. Astha, Advocate
———–
th
07/Dated: 09 May, 2025
1. The instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India for the following reliefs:
“i. For quashing of the order dated 17.03.09 passed by the Central
Information Commission in Case No. CIC/AT/C/2007/00390
whereby the Review Petition filed by the Petitioner for review of
the order by which a penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on him
has been disallowed.
ii. Further for quashing the order dated 01.10.08 passed by the Central
Information Commission in F.No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00390 whereby
penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on the Petitioner.
iii. Further for reliving the Petitioner from penalty of Rs.25,000/-
imposed on the Petitioner by the Central Information Commission
in the facts and circumstances of the case.
…”
2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ
petition which requires to be enumerated, read as under:
1 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
The Petitioner, at the relevant time, was working and posted
as Deputy Chief Mining Engineer / Project Officer at E.J. Area,
B.C.C.L., Dhanbad.
On 11.09.2006 one Brig. Sri P.K. Kaul (Rtd.) sought some
information through R.T.I. from B.C.C.L. vide Application
No.7630/PKK/EJ/RTI/2SDG/1. On 28.10.2006, the Asstt. Survey
Officer wrote a letter contained in Ref. No. BCCL/EJA/PIO/F-
IF/06/11074-76 to the Project Officer, Bhowra 3 pit OCP in
reference to the above mentioned application so that information
could be furnished to the applicant and during the relevant time, Sri
Ajoy Kumar was posted as Project Officer, Bhowra.
On 18.11.2006, the writ Petitioner joined at Bhowra as
Project Officer. When no information was furnished by the Project
Officer, Ajoy Kumar, the then Project Officer, Bhowra, the Asstt.
Survey Officer sent two reminders letters to the Project Officer
dated 22.11.2006 & 29.11.2006 for furnishing information
mentioning that if information is not furnished within time, penalty
may be imposed on him. The said two letters were received by the
Dak Dispatch Clerk on 04.12.2006 but the same were not placed
before the Petitioner.
On 15.05.2008 the petitioner was transferred to Amlabad
project and on 05.07.2008 the Petitioner received a show cause
notice dated 26.06.2008 in reference to letters dated 28.10.2006,
22.11.2006 and 29.11.2006 for not furnishing required information
even after repeated reminders and in the said show cause
05.08.2008 was fixed as date of hearing which was later on
postponed on 09.09.2008. The aforesaid show cause notice was also
issued to Sri Ajoy Kumar since when the information was sought,
he was In-charge of Project Officer, Bhowra.
The petitioner, before submitting the reply of the show
cause, wrote a letter contained in Ref. No. BCCL:AMBD:08:2151
dated 07.07.2008 to the Personnel Manager, Bhowra 3 pit OCP
requesting to communicate to Petitioner whether the above-
2 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
mentioned reminder letters were received at Bhowra 3 pit OCP or
not.
On 08.07.2008, the Personnel Manager, Bhowra wrote a
letter to Sri Suresh Kumar Paswan (Dak Dispatch Clerk) seeking
information that whether the above mentioned reminders letters
which were received by him on 04.12.2006 were placed before the
Project Officer or not.
On 14.07.2008 Petitioner wrote a letter contained in Ref.
No. BCCL:AMBD:08:2270 to the Personnel Manager, Bhowra 3
pit OCP requesting him to furnish Xerox copy of Dak Dispatch
register and Dak receipt register from the date 29.11.2006 to
15.12.2006 and vide letter dated 22.07.08 the Dak Dispatch Clerk
submitted his explanation alongwith the Xerox copies of Dak
Dispatched Register stating therein that he received the letters under
RTI was received which he gave to the project officer however in
his explanation no proof was given in this regard.
The petitioner replied to the show cause notice mentioning
the facts that the reminder letters were never placed before him and
just after receiving of the reminder letters by the Dak Dispatch
Clerk he went on for rescue operation as during his posting at
Bhowra he was also entrusted with various other jobs.
On 31.07.2008 the Petitioner again wrote a letter contained
in Ref. No. BCCL: AMBD:08:2427 to the Personnel Manager,
Bhowra 3 pit OCP requesting him to furnish the Xerox copies of
Dak receipt register, thereafter petitioner was informed that at the
time when letters were received there was no system of entry in the
dak receipt register.
On receiving the above information, the petitioner again on
30.08.2008 wrote a letter contained in Ref. No. BCCL: AMBD
08:2764 to the Personnel Manager, Bhowra requesting him to
personally enquire into the matter to ascertain the system of Dak
receipt and dispatch in past and present.
3 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
On 09.09.2008 the Petitioner attended hearing before the
Commission.
Vide order dated 01.10.08 in Case No.CIC/AT/A/2007/00390 Sri A.N. Tiwary, Information
Commissioner, Central Information Commission imposed a penalty
of Rs.25,000/- on Petitioner and Shri Ajoy Kumar for causing delay
in furnishing information.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 01.10.2008 the
petitioner and Sri Ajoy Kumar had preferred a separate review
application for review of the order dated 01.10.2008.
The said review petitions were disposed of on 17.03.2009
by the Information Commissioner, Central Information
Commission, whereby Petitioner’s prayer of review was rejected on
the ground that he was holding the charge at Bhowra from
18.11.2006 to 15.05.2008 so the plea that the letter dated
28.10.2006 was not received at his office cannot be accepted
whereas the prayer of Shri Ajoy Kumar allowed and he was relieved
from the penalty of Rs.25,000/-on the ground that he had a short
spell of time of 18 days for furnishing reply of R.T.I. Application.
Being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has preferred the
instant writ petition.
3. It is evident from the factual aspect that the petitioner while working
as Project Officer in a particular colliery, the information seeker has
made an application for information under Section 5 of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2005).
The petitioner at that time, was not posted as Project Officer of the
concerned project, however, he was posted thereafter. The
information as sought for by the information seeker was not
provided by the Public Information Officer and as such, the first
appeal was filed in view of the provision as contained under first
proviso to Section 19 of the Act, 2005 but even then the information
4 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
was not provided, hence, the second appeal under the provision of
second proviso to Section 19 of the Act, 2005 was filed.
4. The Central Information Commission has passed an order by
exercising the power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005
by inflicting penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the ground that the
information as was sought for by the information seeker has not
been supplied within the stipulated period as per the Act 2005. The
Central Information Commission has also inflicted the said penalty
upon another Project Officer who was posted the day when the
application was submitted by the information seeker for seeking
information. However, the Project Officer who was posted during
the relevant time, the day when the application was received by the
said Public Information Officer, was exonerated from the liability
on the application filed said to be by way of review as would be
evident from the order dated 17.03.2009.
5. The petitioner challenged the order dated 01.10.2008 by taking two
fold grounds that:
(i) The day when the application was submitted by the
petitioner, the petitioner was not posted as project officer to
act as ex-officio Public Information Officer.
(ii) The project officer who was discharging his duty as a Public
Information Officer the day when the application was filed
by the information seeker seeking information has also been
dealt with by inflicting penalty of Rs.25,000/- but has been
exonerated from the said charge by exercising the power of
review.
6. The writ petitioner, on the aforesaid premise, has filed the instant
writ petition.
7. It needs to refer herein that vide order dated 26.02.2020 this Court
had directed to issue notice to respondent no. 4 (the Central
Information Commission) by Registered Post with A/D, for which,
5 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
it has been directed to file requisites etc. by 25th March, 2020.For
ready reference the order dated 26.02.2020 is being quoted as
under:
“04/26.02.2020
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Issue notice to respondent no. 4 by Registered Post with A/D,
for which, requisites etc. to be filed by 25th March, 2020.
Office is directed to issue the same forthwith.
List this case on 6th May, 2020”
8. Further on 07.01.2021 this Court had again directed to the petitioner
to comply the order dated 26.02.2020.
9. Today this case has been listed before this Court. From perusal of
the entire order sheet as well as office note this Court has found that
the order dated 26.02.2020 has not been complied yet by the
petitioner.
10. This Court, taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, is of the
view that the efforts have not been taken to comply with the order
dated 26.02.2020 which appears to be nothing but a delaying tactics,
as such, further time has been decided not to be given in view of the
fact that the matter is of the year 2010, hence, this Court has thought
it proper to proceed to hear the matter on merit.
Analysis:
11. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone
through the pleading made in the writ petition as also the order
impugned passed by the Commission.
12. This Court, before appreciating the argument advanced on behalf of
the petitioner, deems it fit and proper to refer the object and intent
of the Act, 2005.
13. The said Act came into effect on 15th June, 2005, and is hereby
published for general information. The Right to Information Act is
an Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to
information for citizens to secure access to information under the
control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and
6 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
accountability in the working of every public authority, the
constitution of a Central Information Commission and State
Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.
14. In the case of Bihar Public Service Commission v. Saiyed Hussain
Abbas Rizwi, (2012) 13 SCC 61 the Hon’ble Apex Court while
considering the object and intent of the Act 2005 has observed that
the scheme of the Act contemplates for setting out the practical
regime of the right to information for citizens to secure access to
information under the control of public authorities, in order to
promote transparency and accountability in the working of every
public authority. For ready reference the relevant paragraph of the
aforesaid order is being quoted as under:
10. The scheme of the Act contemplates for setting out the
practical regime of the right to information for citizens to
secure access to information under the control of public
authorities, in order to promote transparency and
accountability in the working of every public authority. It was
aimed at providing free access to information with the object
of making governance more transparent and accountable.
Another right of a citizen protected under the Constitution is
the right to privacy. This right is enshrined within the spirit of
Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the right to information
has to be balanced with the right to privacy within the
framework of law.
15. Further an applicant under RTI Act can seek information from
bodies established under the Constitution, any statute, rules or
notifications as provided by Section 2(h)(a) to Section 2 (h)(d), Act
2005. Information can also be sought from non-statutory
bodies/NGOs if they are owned, controlled or substantially financed
by appropriate Government as proved by Section 2(h)(d)(i) and
Section 2(h)(d)(ii) though they need not qualify the test of “State”
or “instrumentality of State” under Article 12 of Constitution. The
definition of ‘public authority’ under Section 2(1)(h) RTI Act does
not talk of ‘deep and pervasive’ control. It is enough if it is shown
that the authority is ‘controlled’ by the central government.
7 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
16. The Section 3 of the Act 2005 grants right to citizens to have access
to information, and Section 4 of the Act 2005 places an obligation
upon the public authorities to maintain records and provide the
prescribed information. Once an application seeking information is
made, the same has to be dealt with as per Sections 6 and 7 of the
Act. The request for information is to be disposed of within the time
postulated under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. Section 8 is
one of the most important provisions of the Act as it is an exception
to the general rule of obligation to furnish information. It gives the
category of cases where the public authority is exempted from
providing the information. To such exemptions, there are inbuilt
exceptions under some of the provisions, where despite exemption,
the Commission may call upon the authority to furnish the
information in the larger public interest. This shows the wide scope
of these provisions as intended by the framers of law. In such cases,
the Information Commission has to apply its mind whether it is a
case of exemption within the provisions of the said section.
17. The provisions have been inserted in the said statute for the purpose
of facilitating the supply of information to the information seeker
by filing application under Section 5 of the Act, 2005 which
provides that if such application will be filed then the information
is to be supplied. Section 5 of the Act, 2005 further provides, in
order to make the Act, 2005 an effective one so as to achieve the
object and intent thereof, that if any application is being before any
authority who is not discharging his duty as public information
officer posted in the concerned office then his primary duty is to
transmit the said application before the public information officer
for the purpose of supplying the information to the concerned
information seeker. For ready reference, Section 5 of the Act, 2005
is being referred as under:
“5. Designation of Public Information Officers.
(1) Every public authority shall, within one hundred days of the
enactment of this Act, designate as many officers as the Central Public
Information Officers or State Public Information Officers, as the case8 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144may be, in all administrative units or offices under it as may be
necessary to provide information to persons requesting for the
information under this Act.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), every public
authority shall designate an officer, within one hundred days of the
enactment of this Act, at each sub-divisional level or other subdistrict
level as a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State
Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, to receive
the applications for information or appeals under this Act for
forwarding the same forthwith to the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer or senior officer
specified under sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central
Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the
case may be:
Provided that where an application for information or appeal is given
to a Central Assistant Public Information Officer or a State Assistant
Public Information Officer, as the case may be, a period of five days
shall be added in computing the period for response specified under
sub-section (1) of section 7.
(3) Every Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, shall deal with requests from
persons seeking information and render reasonable assistance to the
persons seeking such information.
(4) The Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of
any other officer as he or she considers it necessary for the proper
discharge of his or her duties.
(5) Any officer, whose assistance has been sought under sub-
section (4), shall render all assistance to the Central Public
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case
may be, seeking his or her assistance and for the purposes of any
contravention of the provisions of this Act, such other officer shall be
treated as a Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer, as the case may be.”
18. It is evident from the provision of Section 5 of the Act, 2005 that
the officer who is posted in the office even if not discharging the
duty of public information officer and if any application has been
received by him but he retained the said application instead of
sending it to the Public Information Officer then there will be co-
accountability of such officer for the purpose of dealing with the
issue of penalty as provided under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2005.
19. As per Section 7 sub clause 1 the Central Public Information Officer
or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt
of a request under Section 6 shall, as expeditiously as possible, and
in any case within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either
provide the information on payment of such fee as may be
9 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in
Sections 8 and 9.
20. It has been stipulated in Section 19 of the Act 2005 that any person
who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-
section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 7, or is
aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer
or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within
thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of
such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank
to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public
Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority.
21. Section 19 of the Act, 2005 contains two provisos, the first proviso
speaks about the power to be exercised by the higher authority who
is to act as a First Appellate Authority and the second proviso
confers power upon the Commission to act as Second Appellate
Authority.
22. It needs to refer herein that though Section 19 is exhaustive and a
complete code in itself, decisions of Information Commissions in
second appeal under Section 19, held, are subject to writ and
supervisory jurisdictions of High Courts and Supreme Court.
23. As per Section 20 of the Act 2005 it is evident that the Central
Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as
the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is
of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without
any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for
information or has not furnished information within the time
specified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or malafidely denied
the request for information or knowingly given incorrect,
incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information
which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in
furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred
and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information
10 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not
exceed twenty-five thousand rupees.
24. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussed provisions of the Act
2005 this Court is now adverting to the factual aspects of the instant
case.
25. Admittedly, the information having not been supplied within time
frame as stipulated in Section 7 of the Act 2005 rather beyond the
time frame, therefore, the matter ultimately travelled to the
Commission and the Commission had issued notice to the parties
and thereafter, the order has been passed by being satisfied that the
information has been supplied after delay, i.e., beyond the period of
thirty days. The Commission, therefore, has inflicted penalty of
Rs.25,000/- upon the first incumbent who was posted during the
relevant time the day when the application was submitted by the
information seeker as also upon the writ petitioner who joined the
duty thereafter.
26. However, the first incumbent who was posted as Public Information
Officer the day when the information was sought for by making
application, subsequent to the order passed by the Commissioner,
has filed review.
27. The writ petitioner had also preferred review but the order imposing
penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been recalled by exercising the power of
review with respect to the first incumbent namely Ajoy Kumar who
was posted during the relevant time when the application was
received in the office. However, the said review petition as has been
preferred by the writ petitioner has been dismissed therefore, the
writ petition has been preferred by agitating the aforesaid two
grounds.
28. So far as the first ground is concerned that the application has not
been served by the subordinate staffs of the office but the same
cannot be said to be a ground when the petitioner has admitted the
fact that he was posted in the office and if any laches is there from
11 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
the subordinate staffs of the office it is the accountability of the
incumbent holding the charge of the office, hence, the
accountability which has been casted upon him in the capacity of
project officer by merely taking the ground that the letter which was
send by the information seeker has not been placed before him,
cannot be a ground to make an excuse by denying the information
sought to be supplied.
29. The writ petitioner was posted in the office after receipt of the
application , i.e., two months thereafter and as such, no liability can
be casted upon him but such argument is also not fit to be accepted
due to the reason that the petitioner is posted in the office and even
if the first incumbent who was discharging the duty as Public
Information Officer had not supplied the information and being
transferred to another place, thereafter the petitioner has come then
he was also accountable to take the effective measure for supply of
information which was sought for by the information seeker.
30. The writ petitioner has failed in discharging his statutory duty
casted upon him under the Act, 2005. Even though, he was not
Public Information Officer when the application sought for
requisite information has been filed but on 28.10.2006, the Asstt.
Survey Officer wrote a letter in reference to the aforesaid
application so that information could be furnished to the applicant.
On 28.10.2006 present writ petitioner was not posted at Bhowra as
Project Officer but on 18.11.2006, the writ Petitioner joined at
Bhowra as Project Officer. Thereafter, the Asstt. Survey Officer
sent two reminders’ letters to the Project Officer dated 22.11.2006
& 29.11.2006 for furnishing information mentioning that if
information is not furnished within time, penalty may be imposed
on him.
31. Thus, it is evident that on the concept of deemed Public Information
Officer he will also be said to have accountability. However, the
writ petitioner has not taken the ground of deemed Public
Information Officer but what has been gathered from the argument
12 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
advanced on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, the said making
reference of the implication of deemed Public Information Officer
is being referred herein.
32. The ground has also been taken that the incumbent who was posted
the day when the application was received in the office has also
been dealt with in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1)
of the Act, 2005 by inflicting penalty of Rs.25,000/-, but the said
order was recalled by exercising the power of review but the said
parameter has not been adopted by the Commissioner with respect
to the writ petitioner.
33. There is no dispute that the parity is to be followed but before
considering the question of applicability of the principle of parity,
it needs to refer herein the principle of parity and order of review
dated 17.03.2009.
34. However, it requires to refer herein that the Central Information
Commission (CIC) does not have the power to review its own
orders under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Act 2005 do
not provide for such review, and the CIC has held that re-visiting
orders would amount to reviewing a prior decision, which has not
been provided in the Act 2005.
35. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi v.
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844 while taking
note of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act 1950 has observed that
the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred
by law either specifically or by necessary implication, for ready
reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted as under:
5. —– -. It is well settled that the power to review is not
an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically
or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought
to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government
had power to review its own order. If the Government had no
power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could
not have reviewed its order. The question whether the
Government’s order is correct or valid in law does not arise for
consideration in these proceedings so long as that order is not set
aside or declared void by a competent authority. Hence the same
cannot be ignored. The Subordinate Tribunals have to carry out13 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144that order. For this reason alone the order of Mr Mankodi was
liable to be set aside.
36. Thus, the Commission had not been vested with the powers to
review of its earlier decisions but this Court has no concern with the
issue that whether the Central Information Commission has the
power of review or not, since it is not the case herein.
37. Further, it will be clear from the plain and simple language of
Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act 2005 that, under Section 18 the
Information Commission has the power and function to receive and
inquire into a complaint from any person who is not able to secure
information from a public authority; under Section 19 it decides
appeals against the decisions of the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer relating to
information sought by a person; and under Section 20 it can impose
a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct
information is furnished to a person seeking information from a
public authority.
38. Hence, the functions of the Information Commissions are limited to
ensure that a person who has sought information from a public
authority in accordance with his right to information conferred
under Section 3 of the Act is not denied such information.
39. Now coming to the issue of parity as contended by the counsel for
the writ petitioner by referring the order dated 17.03.2009 that
prayer of Shri Ajoy Kumar allowed and he was relieved from the
penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the ground that he had a short spell of
time of 18 days for furnishing reply of R.T.I. Application.
40. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein that so far as the fact
relating to parity in punishment is concerned, there is no dispute
about the settled proposition that with respect to imposition of
punishment, the Authority is supposed to follow the principle
of parity. Reference in this regard needs to be made of the judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lucknow
14 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
2025:JHHC:14144
Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12
SCC 372 which is being quoted herein below:-
“17. If there is a complete parity in the two sets of case, s
imposing different penalties would not be appropriate as
inflicting of any higher penalty in one case would be
discriminatory and would amount to infraction of the doctrine of
equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. That
is the ratio laid down in the case of Rajendra Yadav v. State of
M.P. reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73, already taken note above, On
the other hand, if there is some difference, different penalty can
be meted out and what should be the quantum is to be left to the
appellate authority. —-
41. The Commission, while passing the order impugned dated
17.03.2009, has observed that the letter dated 28.10.2006, seeking
assistance of Mr. Ajoy Kumar, was received by him on 30.10.2006
and his transfer order was issued on 06.11.2006 and accordingly he
was relieved on 18.11.2006 and as such, he had short spell of time
to furnish the reply.
42. Further, the Commission has observed in the order impugned dated
17.03.2009 in connection with the present writ petitioner that he
was holding the charge from 18.11.2006 till 15.05.2008 and on the
said basis, the commission had disallowed the review petition of the
petitioner.
43. Thus, even on the issue of parity, the order dated 17.03.2009 passed
in connection with on the other delinquent namely Mr. Ajoy Kumar,
will not come in rescue/aid to the present writ petitioner.
44. This Court, in view of the discussion made hereinabove, is of the
view that the writ petition lacks merit, as such, deserves to be
dismissed.
45. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed.
46. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Saurabh/-
A.F.R.
15 W.P.(C) No. 6681 of 2010
[ad_2]
Source link