VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

616 DECISION - 295
the charge of mala fides, if any, made in the writ petition. In examining
the relevancy of the reason, the Court will consider the situation,
which according to the disciplinary authority made it come to the
conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry.
If the Court finds that the reasons are irrelevant, then the recording
of its satisfaction by the disciplinary authority would be an abuse of
power conferred upon it and the impugned order of penalty would
stand invalidated.
(295)
Penalty — discrimination in awarding
Discrimination in awarding penalty of dismissal to
one employee and stoppage of two annual
increments with cumulative effect to another, where
both officials contributed equally in their misconduct
is violative of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
Swinder Singh vs. Director, State Transport, Punjab,
1988(7) SLR P&H 112
The petitioner and Harminder Singh were working as
Assistant Fitters in the Punjab Roadways workshop at Taran Taran.
They were dealt with for unauthorisedly taking out a bus at midnight
and they both admitted having committed a blunder. They were given
a show cause notice of termination of services and the General
Manager terminated their services. The appeal filed by the petitioner
was dismissed, while that of Harminder Singh was partly accepted
and his punishment reduced to stopping of two annual increments
with cumulative effect.
The High Court of Punjab & Haryana held that it is a case of
discrimination as the petitioner as well as Harminder Singh had equally
contributed to their misconduct in taking out the bus of the State
during the night. No special reasons were assigned for giving a severe
punishment to the petitioner than the one awarded to Harminder Singh