IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.691 of 2007 SRI SHASHI KR.SINGH Versus THE BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD & ORS ----------- 5. 06/05/2008 Writ petitioner – appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.2007 passed by a learned single Judge in C.W.J.C.No.9097 of 2005 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner – appellant was an employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board. A departmental proceeding was initiated against him and he was served with memo of charge. According to the memo of charge, in course of revenue collection and issuance of revenue receipts he made manipulations and defalcated a total sum of Rs.85,660/-. The enquiry officer on consideration of materials on record submitted enquiry report and found the writ petitioner–appellant guilty of misconduct. The disciplinary authority agreed with the conclusion of the enquiry officer and - 2 - inflicted punishment of dismissal. On appeal preferred by the writ petitioner – appellant, the appellate authority declined to interfere with the order of punishment. Writ petitioner – appellant challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority before this Court, same has been dismissed by the impugned order. Mr.Ram Suresh Roy, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner – appellant submits that the appellate authority while dismissing the appeal has not adverted to the grounds taken by the writ petitioner – appellant in his memo of appeal and this itself vitiates its order. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr.Roy. As stated earlier, the enquiry officer has found the writ petitioner – appellant guilty of misconduct and the disciplinary authority agreeing with the same had inflicted the punishment. The disciplinary authority while passing the order has taken into account the plea raised by the writ petitioner – appellant. It seems that the writ - 3 - petitioner – appellant raised some point before the appellate authority. The order of the appellate authority shows application of mind and its order cannot be said to be vitiated only on the ground that it has not passed detailed order. Mr.Roy then submits that the writ petitioner – appellant has become the victim of circumstances and the punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the gravity of allegation. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr.Roy. It is well settled that quantum of punishment is primarily to be decided by the employer. This Court interferes with the quantum of punishment, only when it is satisfied that the punishment inflicted is disproportionate to the gravity of allegation or, in other words, shocking to the conscience of the Court. In the present case, writ petitioner – appellant has been found guilty of misconduct of defalcation of the employer’s money. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the punishment inflicted cannot be said to be disproportionate to the gravity of allegation. - 4 - We do not find any merit in the appeal. It is dismissed accordingly. (Chandramauli Kr.Prasad,ACJ.) Pradeep/ (J. N. Singh, J.)