IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT- OFFICIAL RETIRED ON 30th JUNE IS ELIGIBLE FOR INCREMENT DUE ON 1st JULY NOTIONALLY FOR PENSIONARY BENEFITS

IMPORTANT JUDGEMENT- OFFICIAL RETIRED ON 30th JUNE IS ELIGIBLE FOR INCREMENT DUE ON 1st JULY NOTIONALLY FOR PENSIONARY BENEFITS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 15.09.2017
CORAM
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE HULUVADI G.RAMESH
AND
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
W.P.No.15732 of 2017

P.Ayyamperumal …

Petitioner

-vs-

1.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench,
High Court Complex,
Chennai-600 105.

2.Union of Indirep.by
the Chairman, CBEC,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.

3.Union of India rep.by
Department of Personnel & Training
New Delhi.

4.The Director of General (Inspection),
Customs & Central Excise,
"D" Block, I.P.Bhawan, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110 002.

.. Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the first respondent in O.A./310/00917/2015 dated 21.03.2017 and quash the same and consequently direct the fourth respondent to treat the retirement date of the petitioner as on 01.07.2013 and grant all the consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits.

For Petitioner :: Mr.P.Ayyamperumal,
Petitioner-in-Person
For Respondents :: Mr.K.Mohanamurali,

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by
HULUVADI G.RAMESH, J.)

This writ petition has been filed to quash the order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal in O.A./310/00917/2015 dated 21.03.2017 and to consequently direct the fourth respondent to treat the retirement date of the petitioner as 01.07.2013 and grant him all the consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits.

2.The case of the petitioner is that he joined the Indian Revenue Service in Customs and Excise Department in the year 1982 and retired as Additional Director General, Chennai on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. After the Sixth Pay Commission, the Central Government fixed 1st July as the date of increment for all employees by amending Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008. In view of the said amendment, the petitioner was denied the last increment, though he completed a full one year in service, ie., from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013. Hence, the petitioner filed the original application in O.A.No.310/00917/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, and by order dated 21.03.2017, the Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner by taking a view that an incumbent is only entitled to increment on 1st July if he continued in service on that day. Since the petitioner was no longer in service on 1st July 2013, he was denied the relief. Challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petition is filed.

3.The petitioner, appearing as party-in-person, has referred to the judgment passed by this Court in State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and others v.M.Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, wherein the appeal filed by the State challenging the order passed in the writ petition entitling the employee who was similarly placed like that of the petitioner, the benefit of increment on the ground that he has completed one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, was rejected. Referring to that judgment, the petitioner has submitted that the said benefit has to be extended to him. He further submitted that even though the above decision squarely covers his case, no mention has been made by the Central Administrative Tribunal as to how that decision is not applicable to him. With regard to the said issue, the petitioner has also referred to the order passed by the Government of Tamil Nadu in G.O.Ms.No.311, Finance (CMPC) Department, dated 31.12.2014, and submitted that in the said G.O., it has been mentioned that the Pay Grievance Redressal Cell has recommended that when the date of increment of a Government servant falls due on the day following superannuation on completion of one full year of service, such service may be considered for the benefit of notional increment purely for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. Stating so, the petitioner prayed for allowing this writ petition.

4.Heard the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 to 4 on the submissions made by the petitioner and perused the materials available on record.

5.The petitioner retired as Additional Director General, Chennai on 30.06.2013 on attaining the age of superannuation. After the Sixth Pay Commission, the Central Government fixed 1st July as the date of increment for all employees by amending Rule 10 of the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay)
Rules, 2008. In view of the said amendment, the petitioner was denied the last increment, though he completed a full one year in service, ie., from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013. Hence,
the petitioner filed the original application in O.A.No.310/00917/2015 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, and the same was rejected on the ground that an incumbent is only entitled to increment on 1st July if he continued in service on that day.

6.In the case on hand, the petitioner got retired on 30.06.2013. As per the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008, the increment has to be given only on 01.07.2013, but he had been superannuated on 30.06.2013 itself. The judgment referred to by the petitioner in State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Finance Department and others v. M.Balasubramaniam, reported in CDJ 2012 MHC 6525, was passed under similar circumstances on 20.09.2012, wherein this Court confirmed the order passed in W.P.No.8440 of 2011 allowing the writ petition filed by the employee, by observing that the employee had completed one full year of service from 01.04.2002 to 31.03.2003, which entitled him to the benefit of increment which accrued to him during that period.

7.The petitioner herein had completed one full year service as on 30.06.2013, but the increment fell due on 01.07.2013, on which date he was not in service. In view of the above judgment of this Court, naturally he has to be treated as having completed one full year of service, though the date of increment falls on the next day of his retirement. Applying the said judgment to the present case, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the first respondent-Tribunal dated 21.03.2017 is quashed. The petitioner shall be given one notional increment for the period from 01.07.2012 to 30.06.2013, as he has completed one full year of service, though his increment fell on 01.07.2013, for the purpose of pensionary benefits and not for any other purpose. No costs.

Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No

(H.G.R.,J.) (T.K.R.,J.)

15.09.2017

KM

To

1.The Registrar,
Central Administrative Tribunal,
Madras Bench, High Court Complex,
Chennai-600 105.

2.The Chairman, CBEC,
Union of India,
North Block,
New Delhi-110 001.

3.Department of Personnel & Training,
Union of India,
New Delhi.

4.The Director of General (Inspection),
Customs & Central Excise,
"D" Block, I.P.Bhawan, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi-110 002.

Download Order

Government can not accommodate employee in lower pay scale because of disability: High Court

Government can not accommodate employee in lower pay scale because of disability: High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that the government cannot accommodate an employee in a post with a lower pay scale just because he or she acquired some disability during service and became unfit for the current post.

A bench comprising justices Bharati Sapru and Siddharth passed the order while dismissing a petition filed by the Ministry of Railways.

The court directed the ministry to pay S Q Ahmed (accommodated on a post with lower pay scale because he acquired some disability) his dues according to higher pay grade with 7 per cent interest from the due date.

It also imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on railways for not giving its employee his legitimate dues and for dragging him into litigation for no fault on his part.

In its petition, the Centre challenged an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the Ministry of Railways to pay Ahmad his salary and other dues according to his original pay scale.
The tribunal had held that Ahmad was discriminated by the ministry and was wrongly accommodated in the post of lower pay scale on the ground that he became medically unfit for the job he was doing then.

The Railways contention was that if an employee becomes medically unfit he is only entitled for alternative employment in such category under which he is found fit, on the basis of available vacancies.

Therefore, Ahmad was appointed on a post according to his fitness and vacancy and there was nothing wrong in his appointment at a lower pay scale.

However, Ahmads counsel relied on the master circular of the railways ministry which says that during absorption of medically unfit employees, in alternative employment, railways should ensure that the interest of the staff should not be adversely affected as far as possible.

The bench was of the view that such a reduction in pay scale of an employee is discriminatory and in violation of section 47 of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995.

The section provides that no establishment shall dispense with, or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service and in case, an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits.

The bench while dismissing the petition observed, "It must be remembered that a person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice.

"An employee, who acquires disability during his service, is sought to be protected. Such employee, acquiring disability, if not protected, would not only suffer himself, but possibly all those who depend on him would also suffer."

PTI

High Court asks RBI to consider issue of salary payment to teachers

High Court asks RBI to consider issue of salary payment to teachers

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court today asked the RBI to consider the issue of payment of salaries to aided school teachers since it is disbursed through district cooperative banks which have been prohibited from depositing and exchanging old currency notes.

The Mumbai, Solapur, Nashik and Pune District Central Cooperative Banks had approached the high court challenging the RBI circular of November 14, restricting them from exchanging or depositing old currency notes of Rs 500 and Rs 1,000, which were declared as illegal tender under the government’s demonetisation move on November 8.

Solapur co-operative bank counsel V M Thorat today informed the court that the bank receives around Rs 95 crore from the state government for salaries of teachers in aided schools, but due to the circular the bank is not able to disburse the amount.

A division bench of Justices A S Oka and Anuja Prabhudessai asked the Reserve Bank to consider the issue.

"RBI needs to consider this issue. We cannot take this matter up on merits as the Supreme Court is already seized of the main contentions raised in the petitions, but this particular issue about teachers’ salaries can be looked into," Justice Oka said.

"It is common knowledge that teachers of aided schools get their salaries from cooperative banks. We want to know how teachers will get their salaries now," the court said.

Thorat informed the bench today that the banks have filed application in the apex court seeking clarification on whether the high court can hear the matter.

"The application along with the transfer petition filed by the Union government seeking for all petitions filed on the demonetisation issue to be heard by SC itself is posted for hearing on December 9," the counsel said.

The high court then adjourned the cooperative banks petitions to December 14.

PTI

Maternity leave is right of women employees, government even twins in first delivery: High court

Maternity leave is right of women employees, government even twins in first delivery: High court

Madurai: Ruling that maternity leave is given for protection of the health of women government employees, the Madras High court today stayed the order of Joint Director of School Education (personnel) for recovering over Rs two lakh from the salary of a teacher who took 179 days maternity leave for her second delivery.

Maternity leave is a right of women government employees, even they had delivered twins in the first delivery.

Maternity leave is a right of women government employees, even they had delivered twins in the first delivery.

The woman had delivered a twin in the first delivery.

Justice S Vaidyanathan of the High Court’s Madurai bench, said “it will not be correct to take into account the number of children one delivers during the first delivery to decide whether the maternity leave should be extended ignoring the health of the woman.”

“The intention of the maternity leave is to afford protection to the woman during the second delivery, it is not based on the number of children she delivers during the two deliveries,” the judge saidi in his interim order after hearing the petition filed by T Priyadarshini.

The judge said “it is not in dispute that the petitioner had two children. But it is in the first delivery, she gave birth to twins, and hence twin born in the first delivery cannot be put against the petitioner to deprive the second maternity leave.”

The petitioner submitted that she took her first maternity leave in 2011 for 180 days when she delivered a boy and a girl.

Then in 2014, she applied for maternity leave and it was granted. But the Joint Director of School education had said having two surviving children, she was not eligible to apply for second maternity leave and directed the chief education officer to consider the medical leave as loss of pay and recover Rs.2,56,112 from her and remit the money in the treasury immediately.

Inputs with PTI

via tkbsen.in

Release funds for salary of employees: High Court to Delhi government

Release funds for salary of employees: High Court to Delhi government

New Delhi: Warning of a health epidemic, Delhi High Court today directed the Delhi government to ensure immediate release of funds to East Delhi Municpal Corporation to pay dues to employees for May and observed that sanitation workers cannot be expected to work without salaries.

“Why should the poorest wait for their salary. We have gone past promises. People on ground are suffering. Why should they work without salary?” the court said and issued a slew of directions to immediately clear the “alarming proportions” of garbage which has been piling on streets due to a strike by the workers.
The High Court also voiced unhappiness over Delhi Government’s submission that it will take a decision for release of funds in its budget session and said, “Call for an emergency session. It’s a serious issue, a health epidemic.”

On the issue of removal of garbage from the areas, a bench of justices S Muralidhar and I S Mehta directed the Commissioner of Police to constitute specific task forces to be headed by an officer not below the rank of sub-inspector to oversee ward-wise garbage removal right away.

It also restrained the associations of safai karamchaaris from obstructing removal of garbage from dumps, a function which has been outsourced to private agencies.

The court directed the city government, Chief Secretary and Urban Development secretary to hold a meeting with the EDMC Commissioner tomorrow morning and decide the amount required by EDMC for payment of salaries while ensuring that it is released soon.

The bench also directed the Delhi government to ensure that the required funds are “provisionally” transferred by June 15 with the condition that it would be used only for paying the EDMC employees.
It also directed the Police Commissioner, or his representative, and Commissioner of EDMC to meet today itself to work in close coordination over setting up of task force to ensure “removing of garbage is straight away carried out”.

The court passed the order after it perused news reports and pictures submitted by advocate Sanjeev Ralli, who showed photographs of various areas in east Delhi where garbage has spilled onto the roads.

The bench issued notice to Centre, Delhi government, EDMC and various associations of safai karamchaaris, seeking their replies before the next date of hearing on June 19, when the authorities have been directed to submit their compliance reports.

PTI

Whether a person retiring from a higher grade can receive pension less than a person retiring in the lower grade ? – Hon’ble High Court of Patna decides that pension of person retiring from higher grade has to be stepped up

Whether a person retiring from a higher grade can receive pension less than a person retiring in the lower grade ? – Hon’ble High Court of Patna decides that pension of person retiring from higher grade has to be stepped up

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10757 of 2010

M.M.P. Sinha, S/o Late Justice B.P. Sinha A Retired Railway Servant, R/o ‘Vishnupada’, Nageshwar Colony, Boring Road, Patna-800001

…. …. Petitioner/s

Versus

1. Union of India, Through Secretary, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of Finance, North Block, Raisina Hills, New Delhi

2. Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension Through The Secretary, Department of Pension and Pensioner’s Welfare Lok Nayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi

3. Ministry of Railways Through Chairman, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
4. Railway Board, Through Secretary, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi

…. …. Respondent/s

Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. M.M.P. Sinha (In Person)

For the Railways : Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Anil Singh.

For the Union of India : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, A.S.G.

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH)

Date: 18-05-2015

A very simple but ticklish issue arises in this writ petition. The issue is whether a person retiring from a higher grade can receive pension less than a person retiring in the lower grade. Is it not arbitrary and in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vrs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and Others since reported in (2008) 9 SCC 125, the pension of the person in the higher grade would have to be stepped up accordingly.

The contesting respondents are the Union of India through the Secretary, (Department of Expenditure), Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension as also Ministry of Railways through the Chairman and the Secretary. There are supplementary affidavit, counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit after several adjournments.

We have heard learned counsel for the writ petitioner, who appears in person, and learned counsel for the Union of India as well as Railways.

The facts are not, at all, in dispute. The petitioner retired in 1992 from the services of Indian Railways as Additional General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata. At the time of his retirement, he was an officer in Higher Administrative Grade (HAG). Let it be noted that Government of India classified its staff in 33 scales and one exclusive scale for Cabinet Secretary. In so far as relevant S-28, S-29, S-30 and S-31 are scales corresponding to Selection Grade, Senior Administrative Grade, High Administrative Grade and High Administrative Grade+. As per recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission, Central Government declared scale for PB-4 which was for Selection Grade [SG] (S-28), Senior Administrative Grade [SAG] (S-29), High Administrative Grade [HAG] (S-30) as 37,400- 67,000 but provided for Grade Pay for each scale separately at 8,700; 10,000 and 12,000 respectively. But later S-30 was taken out of PB-4 and a separate pay band was provided for it being HAG Scale 67,000-79,000 but while doing so vide circular of Ministry of Railways dated 26.05.2009 Grade Pay of 12,000 for HAG was removed.

As the petitioner had retired in 1992, as per Railway Board’s notification, petitioner’s notional pay was fixed at the minimum of HAG (S-30) being 67,000 without Grade Pay. The result was his pension was then fixed at 50% thereof being 33,500. On the other side, a person in (SAG) Grade S-29, which is an inferior and feeder grade for S-30, the Pay Band is 37,400-67,000 but there is a Grade Pay entitlement of Rs. 10000/-. Accordingly, petitioner points out that the maximum pension that can be paid in Grade S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/- and half of it (50%) would be Rs. 38,500/-. Thus, seen on the face of it, a person retiring in Grade S-29 at the maximum scale would get not only higher remuneration but consequently, higher pension than Grade S-30, for which it was feeder post both in terms of remuneration and pension. This is hostile discrimination, arbitrary and improper. Briefly submitted a junior cannot get higher remuneration or pension than a senior. In order to contradict the objection of the Central Government and the Indian Railways that this is mere a theoretical submission, petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit giving facts and figures. He has given names and designations of at least three officers of the Railways, who have retired on different dates in the Senior Administrative Grade with Grade Pay in the scale of S-29 as against the petitioner, who was in the Higher Administrative Grade. They are receiving pension between Rs. 35690/- and Rs. 36640/-. Even though he is of Higher Administrative Grade, his pension is fixed at maximum of Rs. 33500/-. He has then in the said supplementary affidavit given names of at least eight other persons, who again would be retiring from Senior Administrative Grade in near future and their pension would ordinarily be at Rs. 38500/- as against the petitioner of Rs.33500/-. Petitioner, thus, in theory and practical, has shown the discrepancy i.e. capable of happening and also happening. In fact, he submits that this is a clear case of impermissible discrimination and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

There is no counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government of India in the Department of Public Grievances and Pension. There is counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit by the Railways but it seems Railways have been entrusted to defend the case by the Government of India. Their only defence is that petitioner had retired prior to 2006 whereas; the cases illustrated by him, are cases of persons, who retired after 01.01.2006 or are yet to retire. This, accordingly, is reasonable classification for lower pension in the higher Grade.

In other words, the only explanation given is retirement at different times but there is no explanation as to why a person of a higher grade will get pension less than of a junior grade. The factual assertion of this dichotomy, as pointed out by the petitioner, has not been challenged. It is submitted that earlier for Grade S-30, there was a Grade Pay of Rs. 12000/- So long as the Grade pay was there, there was no problem as the maximum pay entitlement of S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/whereas; the minimum of S-30 would be Rs. 67000 + 12000 = 79000/-. Therefore, there would always be a difference in between two. But when the Central Government in 2009 decided to remove the Grade Pay for S-30 and onwards there would be a clear dichotomy when pension calculations are made, as shown above.

The petitioner has further brought to our notice to a very unhappy situation that would also arise. The maximum pay, as noticed above, of S-29 would be Rs. 67000 + 10000 = 77000/- A person, who is in S-29 reaching the maximum level is then promoted to Higher Administrative Grade from Senior Administrative Grade. In S-30, there being no Grade Pay, he would come to the basic pay of that grade i.e. 67000/-. Effectively, his remuneration upon promotion would stand reduced by Rs. 10000/- and in such an event, he would have to be given a pay protection upon promotion because in absence thereof, the result would be quite ridiculous. It is direct consequence of this that there is anomaly in pension.Respondents’ only defence is that this anomaly is inherent in the system and inherent in the pay and pay structure as fixed with effect from 01.01.2006. The question is whether inherent, apparent or latent discrimination is permissible. In our view, the short answer is that it cannot ever be permissible. A person in the Higher Administrative Grade cannot draw less remuneration or less pension than a person of the Senior Administrative Grade which grade is the Feeder Grade for the Higher Administrative Grade.This is exactly what is happening in the present case. This is exactly what has been deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India and Another Vrs. SPS Vains (Retd.) and Others (Supra). There it was noticed that the Brigadier in the Army was receiving higher pension than the Major General. Brigadier, is the Feeder post for Major General. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the only way out for the Central Government was to step up the pension of Major General so that this discrimination of junior getting higher pension than a Senior is removed.

Neither learned counsel for the Union of India nor the counsel for the Indian Railways is able to distinguish the said decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Apart from saying that the said decision was based on pay basic scale, service conditions of defence services which are different from other civil services, there was no other distinction. It is the principle of law decided that is to be considered. The principle of law, as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, is plain and simple; that a senior officer cannot get pension less than his junior. If that be, the effect of pay fixation than the pension would have to be stepped up to avoid such hostile discrimination. There was no consideration of defence service or any special feature of defence service as distinguishing civil services. The distinction pointed out is illusionary.

Hence, having considered the matter, the facts not being in dispute, as noted above, and the law not being in disputed, as noted above, the result is that the writ petition must succeed and the Judgment and order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bpench, Patna has to be set aside. It has to be held that the basic pension of the petitioner with effect from 01.01.2006 has to be stepped up to Rs. 38,500/- to avoid discrimination. Respondent no.3, Ministry of Railways through the Chairman Railway Board and Respondent no.4, Railway Board through Secretary are given three months time to calculate the arrears of pension accordingly and pay the same within the said period.

This writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.)

Shail/A.F.R.

Download Judgement dated 18.05.2015

High Court sets aside government order dismissing employee on theft charge

High Court sets aside government order dismissing employee on theft charge

Terming as "harsh" the Centre's decision to dismiss a government employee from service for stealing government property, the Bombay High Court has set aside the impugned order and instead lowered the punishment to compulsory retirement from service.

Justices Naresh Patil and BP Colabawalla set aside the July 27, 2010, order of dismissal of Ramchandra Goya Sadhu, who was caught stealing copper rods on May 14, 2010, by the Defence Security Corps Platoon at Tiger Gate here. He was found to have tied the rods around his waist, hiding them inside his clothes.

The court also set aside the March 15, 2013, order of the Central Administrative Tribunal which had upheld his dismissal from service for committing theft of government property.

Instead, the bench ordered that the said employee be slapped with the penalty of compulsory retirement under Rule 40 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, and paid pensionary benefits in accordance with law.

Sadhu had cited a government order wherein four employees who were facing a similar charge of stealing property were not dismissed but given a lesser punishment. Some of them were compulsorily retired from service while others were not given increments for two years.

"Taking into consideration the period of service of the petitioner and his unblemished record in serving his employer, we are of the view that the punishment meted out... namely dismissal from service, was harsh," the bench noted in its order, which was delivered recently.

"We find that the interest of justice would be met if the order of dismissal of the petitioner is set aside and, instead, the lesser punishment of compulsory retirement from service is imposed," the bench said.

"We are not for a moment condoning the actions of the petitioner. The charge of theft is indeed a serious one, but looking to the totality of the facts, we feel that in the present case it would be punishment enough if the petitioner is compulsorily retired from service so that he receives pensionary benefits as per the rules," the judges observed.

The bench said it had taken a sympathetic view in the case only because the petitioner has an unblemished record of 22 years of service and other similarly-placed employees found guilty on theft charges were slapped with penalties lighter than what was meted out to him.

Source : http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/hc-sets-aside-govt-order-dismissing-employee-on-theft-charge-114102300131_1.html