The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside the punishment imposed on an assistant sub-inspector (ASI) after finding that he had a lesser role in an alleged bribery episode but was given the same penalty as the sub-inspector (SI) against whom the bribery and misconduct charges were proved. The court sent the matter back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider his punishment and directed that any fresh punishment must be lesser than that imposed on the sub-inspector.Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat noted that the disciplinary authority imposed the same punishment of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect on both employees, even though the petitioner was not found guilty of bribery or misconduct and was only found to have failed to report the incident to his superior officers.“Merely because two employees were involved in the same incident or were proceeded against in the same departmental enquiry does not mean that they must necessarily receive the same punishment. Their individual role, responsibility and degree of misconduct have to be considered separately,” the September 1 order read. Cooperated with superior in illegal actThe man submitted that he is serving as an ASI in the police department and is presently posted at the Police Lines, Gwalior. He added that based on a complaint, he and two other officials were placed under suspension by an order dated October 22, 2018.It was alleged that the ASI cooperated with said sub-inspector in the illegal activity and failed to report the incident to superior officers. An enquiry officer subsequently revoked his suspension by an order dated December 12, 2018. Justice Anand Singh Bahrawat said the authorities failed to give any proper reason for imposing the same punishment on two employees despite their different roles in the bribery case.After the conclusion of the enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed the punishment order imposing the penalty of withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect on both the sub-inspector as well as the petitioner. Aggrieved, he preferred a departmental appeal, which was dismissed. The officer later filed a mercy petition, which was also dismissed in June, 2021. ‘Punishment disproportionate’The ASI, represented by advocate Raghvendra Dixit, submitted that the enquiry officer did not find the main charges proved against him, except to the limited extent that he failed to inform his superior officers about the incident. Dixit submitted that the allegations relating to bribery and misconduct were found proved only against the sub-inspector and that the punishment imposed on his client was disproportionate.Story continues below this adAlso Read | ‘Police chasing couples instead of probing crimes’: Allahabad High Court’s stern warning to UP copsThe state, through advocate B M Patel, argued that the departmental enquiry was conducted strictly as per the prescribed procedure after affording full opportunity of hearing to the ASI. Patel added that the disciplinary authority rightly punished him by withholding one annual increment with cumulative effect. Different roles, same punishmentThe court found that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was disproportionate, noting that the serious allegations relating to bribery and misconduct were found proved against said sub-inspector and not against the petitioner. “Despite this distinction, the same punishment was imposed upon both,” it added.It said the appellate and revisional authorities did not properly consider the ASI’s case and mechanically upheld the punishment. The court added that the authorities failed to provide any proper reason as to why a person against whom the serious allegation of bribery was proved and a person against whom only failure to report the incident was proved should receive the same punishment. “In the present case, the difference in the role of the petitioner and the co-delinquent was a very important circumstance,” the court stated, while pointing out that the punishment imposed on the ASI suffered from “procedural illegality and disproportionality”Story continues below this adAccordingly, the high court quashed the punishment order, the appellate order and the mercy petition order insofar as they related to the punishment imposed on the petitioner and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration.The court directed the disciplinary authority to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, pass a fresh reasoned order and take into account that his role was lesser than that of the co-delinquent sub-inspector.