The petitioner already had four prior convictions within just six years of service, the Calcutta High Court noted. (Image generated using AI)Calcutta High Court news: Noting that “unequals cannot be treated as equals”, the Calcutta High Court has upheld the dismissal of a Border Security Force (BSF) constable found guilty of facilitating cattle smuggling.A division bench of Justices Madhuresh Prasad and Prasenjit Biswas was hearing a plea by a constable seeking relief on the ground that the co-accused, a head constable, received only a punishment of reversion to a lower post.“It is a trite law that parity can be claimed only with equals, and unequals cannot be treated as equals,” the court said on February 25.Also Read | ‘Don’t fight ego battles’: Calcutta High Court rejects IIM student’s plea for promotion despite medical conditionThe order added that the petitioner, a member of an armed force, is expected to maintain a high degree of integrity and dedication to duty, observing a high standard of discipline; therefore, he was rightly considered liable for dismissal.Case of dismissal over bribeThe petitioner, a BSF constable, was charged alongside a head constable for an incident occurring on the intervening night of November 9 and 10, 2007.While on ambush duty at the Indo-Bangladesh border, the two were accused of conniving with a civilian to allow the illegal crossing of 12 to 15 pairs of cattle in exchange for a bribe of Rs 7,000 per pair.Upon holding a Summary Security Force Court (SSFC) against the petitioner, he was awarded a punishment which he assailed by way of a petition.He subsequently challenged his dismissal in the high court before a single judge, alleging that the proceedings were perverse and that he was a victim of discrimination because the head constable, who faced identical charges, received only a punishment of reversion.The single judge upheld the decision of the authority by saying that it found no reason to interfere with the punishment.Following the single judge’s order, the petitioner approached the division bench.‘Unequals cannot be treated equally’The petitioner had suffered four prior convictions within just six years of service, whereas the head constable had a long tenure with no prior disciplinary record.The petitioner was not in a position to claim parity with the head constable.The petitioner’s claim for equality is founded merely on a consideration of the charges being the same against the petitioner and the head constable. But that is not the only relevant consideration.The fact that the petitioner has four prior convictions in service, and that the head constable does not have a single prior conviction in service, distinguishes the petitioner from the other accused.The apex court in this regard has stated in its judgment delivered in the case of Uttar Pradesh Power Corporation Limited v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra and Another that though it is settled that equals cannot be treated unequally, it is well settled that unequals cannot be treated equally.Also Read | ‘Process becomes punishment’: Calcutta High Court uses ‘filter theory’ to shield husband’s brother in dowry caseThe top court has laid down that treating unequals as equals would offend the doctrine of equality enshrined in Articles 14 (equality before law) and 16 (equality of opportunity in public employment)of the Constitution of India.Six witnesses have supported the allegation against the petitioner.We find no force in the submission of the petitioner’s advocate that in the proceeding, the appellant’s confession has been recorded under threat and duress.The petitioner’s confession is recorded in the proceeding with a signature of the petitioner, without raising any contemporaneous demurrer (existing objection).Even if we were to discard confession, the same would not be to the petitioner’s benefit.Still, there would remain an unimpeached deposition made by six witnesses in the SSFC.Taking into consideration the recurrent delinquency of the petitioner throughout his career, the disciplinary authority inflicted a punishment of dismissal.Jagriti Rai works with The Indian Express, where she writes from the vital intersection of law, gender, and society. Working on a dedicated legal desk, she focuses on translating complex legal frameworks into relatable narratives, exploring how the judiciary and legislative shifts empower and shape the consciousness of citizens in their daily lives. Expertise Socio-Legal Specialization: Jagriti brings a critical, human-centric perspective to modern social debates. Her work focuses on how legal developments impact gender rights, marginalized communities, and individual liberties. Diverse Editorial Background: With over 4 years of experience in digital and mainstream media, she has developed a versatile reporting style. Her previous tenures at high-traffic platforms like The Lallantop and Dainik Bhaskar provided her with deep insights into the information needs of a diverse Indian audience. Academic Foundations: Post-Graduate in Journalism from the Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), India’s premier media training institute. Master of Arts in Ancient History from Banaras Hindu University (BHU), providing her with the historical and cultural context necessary to analyze long-standing social structures and legal evolutions. ... Read More © IE Online Media Services Pvt Ltd