IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.343 of 2001 KRISHNA MOHAN PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 5/ 29/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.4.1999 awarding him the punishment of censure to be recorded in his service book for the year 1990-1991 withholding of promotion for three years and recovery of amount of Rs.2,88,000/- from his salary by deduction of Rs.3000/- per month and if he superannuated before the entire recovery, the balance to be recovered from his pensionary benefits. The appeal preferred against the order has also been rejected on 19.8.2000 which is also assailed. The petitioner, an assistant engineer in the Water Resources Department, was deputed to the Road Construction Department when he was assigned earth work for construction of road. One Shri Ram Iqbal Prasad Singh Yadav, a junior engineer of the Road Construction Department was also deputed for the same works along with the petitioner. The works are stated to have been completed and payments made when certain allegations came to be made which were enquired into by the Lokaukt who recommended a departmental enquiry on the basis of certain preliminary reports submitted before him. It is not in controversy that in the enquiry, the petitioner was made available the preliminary enquiry report and he submitted his reply also, the punishment being minor in nature. To - 2 - that extent this Court is not persuaded to entertain objections to the enquiry that the junior engineer who carried out the preliminary enquiry and the Engineer-in-Chief who endorsed it were not examined during the enquiry when there is nothing on record to suggest any demand made by the petitioner to summon them for cross- examination. The second submission on behalf of the petitioner, however, has force. Shri Yadav, named above was also proceeded against departmentally. The allegations were with regard to the same earth work, for the same roads and for the same period in question. The punishment meted out to him is far short of that meted out to the petitioner. Originally directions against him were for recovery of 1,99,014.94. Subsequently that was reduced to Rs.5,259(sic), 5256 along with the punishment of censure only. Additionally, a depreciation in earth work for natural reasons to the extent of 50% has been granted to Shri Yadav while it has been granted only 15% to the petitioner. If the allegations were primarily the same of misdemeanours in the same construction, prima facie, this Court is satisfied that this is an aspect which was to be considered appropriately by the respondents before passing orders for punishment of the petitioner, different in nature. Learned counsel fairly submits that this aspect of the matter of a treatment different from that given to Mr. Yadav has not been raised by the petitioner in his appeal. - 3 - There is no occasion for this Court to interfere in the matter or in respect of the impugned orders, except on the quantum of punishment. The quantum of punishment as uphold by the appellate order are simultaneously set aside and the matter is remanded to the respondent authorities to pass fresh orders on the quantum of punishment, in accordance with law, keeping in mind the punishment awarded to the aforesaid Shri Yadav. Let such appropriate orders be passed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Till such time that the fresh orders are not passed, no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner and which matter shall abide by the fresh final decision taken by the respondents. The writ application is disposed. KC ( Navin Sinha,J )