IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9582 of 2006 VIJAY PRASAD SHARMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 16/7/2008 Heard counsel for the petitioner. Reference may be made to the order of this Court dated 15.4.2008. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit replying the aforementioned query, wherein it has been clearly mentioned that appointment of one Kailash Prasad was found to be forged by the Government and vide order dated 8.10.2001 direction was given to initiate departmental proceeding against him, but the petitioner, acting headmaster of the School, despite receipt of the aforementioned order kept on drawing his salary bills, as a result whereof the payment continued through the Drawing and Disbursing Officer for the period up to April, 2004. It has therefore been suggested in the counter affidavit that ultimately as departmental proceeding was conducted and order of punishment was passed on 24.11.2005 wherein not only the petitioner was subjected reduction of 10% of his pension but was also sought to be penalized by way of recovery of salary paid to the aforementioned Kailash Prasad, the teacher whose appointment was found to be forged. Counsel for the State, in fact, has pointed out that keeping in view that the petitioner has already retired from service that part of order of punishment for recovery of amount 2 from the petitioner had been modified by the Appellate authority, namely, Secretary of the department who had modified by recalling one of the two punishments, namely, amount of recovery of salary. He, however, submits that when there is clear proof of the fact that pecuniary loss was caused on account of conduct of the petitioner, the order seeking reduced 10% pension cannot be said to be either bad in law or excessive. Mr Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact but has still submitted that the authority had been already informed by the petitioner through two letters as contained in Annexures 11 and 12 directing him to draw salary bills on account of which he had reasons to believe that the appointment of Kailash Prasad was valid and correct. Such submission of Mr. Shukla however cannot be accepted for a simple reason that even the letters contained in Annexures 11 and 12 have been found to be forged letters. As a matter of fact, that itself makes the charge against the petitioner more graver because he was Headmaster of the School and was expected to be careful in looking to the communication received from the Directorate particularly when such communication was with regard to illegal appointment of a forged teacher. That apart, the submission of Mr. Shukla that now this Court once again should look into the evidence and findings for holding that charges 3 against the petitioners were not conclusively proved is fit to be rejected on its face value because whatever equitable relief was admissible to the petitioner has already been given to him by the appellate authority and in fact the authority has already withdrawn the major portion of punishment of recovery from the petitioner, being the amount of salary paid to the teacher whose appointment was found to be forged. In the facts and circumstances of this case, when on account of deliberate misconduct including his negligence the government exchequer was put to substantial loss, recourse of stopping of 10% pension cannot be said to be against the spirit of section 43 (B) of the Bihar Pension Rules. The petitioner infact appears to have been let off quite leniently by the Respondents even when the charge against him had been found to be proved both by the disciplinary and the appellate authority. This Court in fact does not find any error in the decision making process of the authorities and cannot reappraise the evidence as a second appellate authority. Be that as it may, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. ( Mihir Kumar Jha, J. ) Abhay Kumar