IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1308 of 2011 Laxman Paswan, son of late Jaikrishna Paswan, resident of village – Venga Chandpur, P S – Jankinagar, District – Purnea Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. Special Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. Under Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. Deputy Secretary to Government, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna. 5. Principal Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. 6. Accountant General, Bihar, Patna. 7. Deputy Secretary to Government, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Bihar, Patna. ----------- 02. 29.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Even though there is no counter affidavit filed, looking at the question of law which has been raised and the background under which Annexure-4 has been passed, in the present case the issue is confined whether the order of punishment now having been reduced to withholding of 10 per cent of the pension only for 10 years is permissible or not? The Court cannot ignore the observation of the learned single Judge passed earlier that in the given facts the Court was not persuaded to interfere with the order of punishment on any of the grounds urged including the punishment being barred by time under Rule 43(b) of the Pensions Rules. Earlier the order of punishment was of 10 per cent 2 for life long. The Court did consider this aspect of the matter but did not agree with the contention of the petitioner that no case was made out for imposition of some punishment with regard to the conduct of the petitioner. Matter was remitted to the respondent authorities to reconsider from the point of view to the extent of quantum of punishment. Matter has been reconsidered and the authorities have decided to withhold 10 per cent of the pension only for 10 years and not for life long. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that this ought not to have been done and should not be permitted to be done because there is no finding that there was financial loss and in absence of the same, no punishment of such kind can be imposed. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not merit consideration in light of the observation already recorded by the leaned Single Judge contained in Anneuxre-4. If the submission is permitted to be re-entertained, it will amount to allowing him to re-argue the matter as a whole, which is not permissible because what had already been decided cannot be brushed aside by way of re-agitating the issue. There is no occasion to interfere with the order impugned. Writ is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)