IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12898 of 2005 AKHILESHWAR PRASAD SHRIVASTAVA SON OF LATE JWALA PRASAD RESIDENT OF AAM BAGICHA, MADHUBAN COLONY, ADARSH VIHAR, RUKANPURA, BAILEY ROAD, P.O. VETERINARY COLLEGE, P.S. DANAPUR, PATNA. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINSTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 2. COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARMENT, PATNA. 3. DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVT. PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 4. COMMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. 5. DIRECTOR, ADMINISTRATIVE CUM DEPUTY SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS BHAWAN, PATNA. ----------- 4 15/09/2010 Order of punishment of withholding 10% of the pension of the petitioner life long has come to be passed in exercise of power under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules. Before imposition of punishment contained in annexure-1, a detailed enquiry was held against the petitioner for the charge that the petitioner allowed withdrawal of allocation of a particular fund twice over and to that extent he was held to be liable for having facilitated withdrawal of the allotted amount beyond the sanction or budgetary allocation made to the - 2 - department. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no finding recorded against the petitioner that it was a case of misappropriation or to that extent loss of money because there was evidence to show that this money was utilised for making supplies of stationary to the Minister and Deputy Minister of Education at that time. In other words, the money was utilised for the government and it is not a case that the petitioner was, in any manner, instrumental in disappearance of the withdrawal amount. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State but taking cue from the enquiry report which has been brought on record by way of annexure 8 to the writ application, it is not a case where the petitioner has been exonerated by the Commissioner of Departmental Enquiry, Government of Bihar. Finding of negligence and withdrawal of money twice over has been found to be correct. The explanation offered by the petitioner did not rub on to the enquiry officer because he was a drawing and disbursing officer and putting the blame on his subordinates is not going to absolve him of his - 3 - responsibility of the post which he was holding at the relevant time. It is also a fact that both the charges were found to be partially correct by the enquiry officer and the question, therefore, arises whether the conduct of the petitioner falls in the category of grave misconduct where his pension ought to be reduced by 10% life long. Since it is not the case that petitioner has been totally absolved of his responsibility of the charges, therefore, this Court is not inclined to let go the petitioner scot-free but it is also a fact that for the kind of charge and the finding in the enquiry report as such, withholding of 10% of pension of the petitioner life long may be too harsh a punishment to be imposed. The finding being what they are, in the opinion of this Court, withholding of pension of the petitioner to the extent of 10% for the rest of his life would be harsh and disproportionate. In the opinion of this Court, withholding of pension at the rate of 10% from the date of imposition of punishment till the passing of this order would be sufficient punishment to the petitioner. Impugned order in annexure-1 is modified to the - 4 - extent that 100% pension of the petitioner would be restored from the date of this order. Earlier part of withholding of pension from the date of imposition of punishment till today, however, shall remain. This writ application is disposed of with the modification in the punishment order contained in annexure-1 to the extent aforesaid. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)