IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16673 of 2009 1. ISHWAR DAYAL PRASAD S/O LATE RAM KISHUN SAW R/O VILL TARAR, P.S.DAUDNAGAR, DISTT- AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, WATER RSOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, TO THE GOVT. WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE ENGINEER- IN CHIEF (NORTH), WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, IRRIGATION BUILDING PATNA ----------- 03. 27.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. None is present on behalf of the State. Counter affidavit has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also assisted the Court to go through the counter affidavit. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceedings. An order of dismissal came to be passed. He questioned the same in C.W.J.C. No. 4155 of 1999. His contention of procedural impropriety in the departmental proceedings by failure to supply relevant documents did not find favour with the Court. The petitioner then moulded his submission that the punishment was severe and disproportionate to the charges. The Court remanded the matter to the authorities limited to the issue of quantum of punishment. Dissatisfied with the order declining interference with the departmental proceedings, the petitioner preferred L.P.A. No. 929 of 2004. The 2 Appellate Court on consideration of the charges and other relevant facts found no merit in the appeal holding that the matter had been rightly remanded on the issue of quantum of punishment. The scope for the Writ Court to interfere with an order of punishment passed in a departmental proceeding is extremely limited except in cases of gross violation of procedures, perversity of findings etc. The Court did not find any such infirmity. The findings in the disciplinary proceedings attained finality to justify a punishment, all that remain opened for consideration by the authority was the quantum. The matter having been reconsidered. The disciplinary authority passed a fresh order dated 23.7.2008, modifying the punishment of dismissal into one for recovery of Rs. 2,95,110/- and that nothing beyond subsistence allowance was payable for the period of suspension in between 15.5.1989 to 31.5.1981 and from 1.6.1991 to 26.11.1996. 90% subsistence allowance was payable, the period of suspension was to otherwise count for purposes of pension. The petitioner questioned the same in a review application which has upheld the same by order dated 18.6.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner from the order dated 23.7.2008 stressed that there was no 3 allegation of fraud or defalcation against the petitioner and that charges should have been taken over by the new incumbent before relieving him. Therefore, the direction for recovery of the aforesaid sum was not proportionate to the findings and the authority cannot be said to have applied its mind properly for reconsideration of the punishment. The finding in the departmental enquiry of financial loss caused to the Government by the conduct of the petitioner was not interfered with by the Writ Court and the Appellate Court in earlier challenge. The finding was of financial loss attributable to the petitioner. Fraud or defalcation is not relevant. Financial loss can occur by other means of conduct also. This Court finds it difficult to reappraise or reconsider the findings in the disciplinary authority to judicially review the fresh order passed with regard to the quantum of punishment. Quantum of punishment is the prerogative of the administrator and not of the Court. It is only in extreme cases of grossly disproportionate shocking the conscience of the Court that the Court may interfere directly after discussing the compelling and cogent reasons for the same. The present was not found to be such a case in the earlier litigations preferred by the petitioner. 4 The impugned orders clearly state that the matter has been reconsidered by the authorities based on his representation and the relevant records. This Court is satisfied that there has been due and proper application of mind by the respondents on the issue of quantum of punishment from the simple fact that an order for major punishment of dismissal has now been reduced to a minor punishment for recovery of a specified amount of money stated to be loss caused to the authority by the conduct of the petitioner. This Court is satisfied that there is no occasion for it to interfere with the impugned orders dated 23.7.2008 and 18.6.2009. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. P.K. (Navin Sinha, J.)