IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9332 of 2010 1. Shashi Kant Pandey S/O Late Shyam Pandey Deputy Secretary (Retd.), Public Health Engineering Department, Patna At Present Residing At East Of Postal Park Chawraha, Chirayatand, Nala Road, P.S. Kankarbagh, Distt.- Patna Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. Deputy Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna ----------- 3. 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally on eight charges. On charge no. 3 he was found partially guilty and on charge no. 4 he was found guilty. It led to an order of punishment dated 24.6.2008 visiting him with stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. Enhanced subsistence allowance allowed for the period of suspension and which was otherwise to be counted for service. The petitioner came to this Court challenging the same in C.W.J.C. No. 15309 of 2009. After some argument the relief sought was moulded to questioning the quantum of punishment only. The Court observed that it was the domain of the executive to be considered in accordance with law. The respondents have then passed the fresh order dated 19.3.2010 refusing to reconsider the quantum of punishment. 2 The Court finds it difficult to concur with the petitioner that in C.W.J.C. No. 15309 of 2009 the challenge was to the entire issue with regard to the proceedings including the punishment. It is more than apparent from the order of the Court that it did not find any reason to interfere with the departmental proceedings and the order of punishment passed therein. The language of the order makes it explicit that unable to persuade the Court to interfere on merits, the submissions were moulded confining them to the issue of quantum of punishment only. The Court therefore finds it difficult to reopen that chapter again. The second contention is that the order declining to interfere with the quantum of punishment passed by the administrative authority was unreasoned and arbitrarily denies interference. Counsel for the State has rightly pointed out that the order more than adequately states that his grievances had been reconsidered in detail. The order of punishment was passed on 25.6.2008. He had superannuated on 31.5.2008. He had also been paid 75% of his subsistence allowance. The Court is satisfied that there has been more than adequate application of mind to the issue quantum of 3 punishment by the respondents. The quantum of punishment is the prerogative of the employer. It is not for the Court to substitute its own opinion merely because another view may be possible on the same materials. The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)