Letters Patent Appeal No.165 OF 2006 (Against the judgment and order dated 09.01.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 4826 of 2003) MAHENDRA PRASAD SINGH, son of Late Kashi Singh, resident of village- Baraun, P.S.-Kawakol, District-Nawadah. ---------------(Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 2. The Special Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan,Patna. 4. The Joint Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Sinchai Bhawan, Patna. ---------------(Respondents/Respondents. P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH ********** Navin Sinha & D.K. Singh, J.J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. The appellant was proceeded with on eight charges. Four of them were not proved, three were proved and one was partly proved. A second show cause notice followed on the proved charges, duly replied, culminating in the order of dismissal from service dated 12.08.2000. The appeal against the same has also been rejected. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the appellant, the enquiry report, reply to the second show cause notice given by the appellant, we are not satisfied 2 that he has been able to make out any case of procedural impropriety in the departmental proceedings to hold that the judgment under appeal requires interference. Learned counsel for the appellant next submitted that he had an unblemished service record. The appellant has not been found guilty of misappropriation of government properties or severe financial irregularities. The act of omission and commission allegedly attributable to him were approximately of the value of Rs. 3,200/-. He was placed under suspension in the year 1984, departmental proceeding initiated in 1984 itself but concluded as late as on 12.06.2000 when he reached the age of superannuation in November, 2004. The appeal is stated to have been preferred on 08.07.2000 and was ultimately disposed of on 11.03.2003. The appellant, therefore has suffered enough also by the travails of prolonged departmental proceeding. On the aforesaid basis, it was urged that the judgment under appeal has erred in so far as the quantum of punishment is concerned which is wholly disproportionate and the appellant deserves lesser punishment than dismissal. Learned counsel for the State urged that the judgment under appeal requires no interference. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are satisfied that in the nature of allegations, the findings of the enquiry, the period of which the disciplinary 3 proceedings were kept pending, the time consumed in the appeal, the appellant has suffered the travails for a long period of time which undoubtedly also operates as a kind of punishment given the fact that the allegations and the findings have continued to operate against him. While there can be no quarrel with the need for clean and honest administration, it shall have to be balanced with the gravity of the charges, past service record etc of the delinquent. If he had a clean service record, as is contended on his behalf, and we find that there are no serious allegations against him of financial embezzlement, his contention that at best the loss suffered by the State treasury of approximately 3,200/- negligence in discharge of his duty as opined by the enquiry officer, dismissal may not be the proper punishment. We, therefore, without interfering with the findings of punishment to be imposed, set aside the order of dismissal only on the issue of quantum of punishment and remand to the authorities to reconsider the appropriate punishment to be imposed. Learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that if the quantum of punishment is reduced, he is willing to forgo any claim for salary from the date of dismissal till the date of superannuation but shall be seeking the limited relief that the period may be counted for period in service to ensure continuity in so far as his pension etc are concerned. 4 With the aforesaid modification of the judgment under appeal, the appeal stands disposed. Patna High Court Dated 28th of April, 2010 Shageer/NAFR (Navin Sinha, J) (Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)