IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1193 of 2009 Devendra Mohan Jha s/o late Braj Nath Jha, r/o village – Koilakh, P.S. – Raj Nagar, District – Madhubani …. …………… Appellant Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary/Commissioner, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4. The Dy. Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 5. The Chief Engineer, Research and Training, Water Resources Department, Khagaul, Patna 6. The Executive Engineer, Ganga Pump Canal Division, No.2, Munger 7. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division No.2, Jhajha, Jamui 8. The Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division Garhi, Munger …………. Respondents. ----------- For the appellant : Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, Advocate For the respondents: Mr.A. Bhardwaj, AC to SC XXI 2 14/9/2009 Heard Mr. Rajendra Nath Jha, counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Bhardwaj, AC to SC XXI. For the reasons stated in the application (IA. No.5949 of 2009), the delay in fling the appeal is condoned. I.A. No.5949 of 2009 stands disposed of. On consent of the parties, the appeal itself is taken up for admission. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated 2 against the appellant for embezzlement of iron rods. The appellant had remained absent throughout the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer found the guilt of the appellant to be true and subsequently an order of dismissal was passed on 19.3.2002. The appellant had challenged the said order contending that, in fact, he became ill and was not in a position to move because of paralytic attack. In support of illness, the appellant had produced two medical certificates. One dated 9.5.1999, which indicate that he was suffering from hyper tension and the other dated 24.2.2002, indicates that he was suffering from paralytic attack. The main contention projected before the learned single judge was, to the effect, that since the petitioner on account of illness was not in a position to attend the departmental proceeding, an opportunity should be given to him to explain his innocence. The learned single judge by referring all materials came to the finding that the plea of illness of the petitioner had not at all been accepted because he did not have produced any acceptable materials in support of his 3 grievance. The learned single judge also observed as follows: “ Let it be noted that the learned counsel for the petitioner did not assail the impugned order of punishment on any other ground and as such, this court has also not gone into the merits of the charge, which on the face of record seems to be quite serious and was found to have been also proved by the Enquiry Officer in his enquiry report. In that view of the matter, this court would not find any merit in this application, which is, accordingly, dismissed.” The learned single judge also pointed out in the impugned judgment that there was no reply on behalf of the petitioner as to why two medical reports produced by him were not accepted by the disciplinary authority and as to why he was not permitted to join after he became fit. These aspects have been considered in detailed by the learned single judge and we see hardly any reason to differ with him on the said conclusion, which is based on discussion of all the materials on record. Apart from above contention, learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that, in fact, 4 the appellant had also assailed the punishment on merits but such aspect was not considered by the learned single judge. We have already extracted the observation of the learned single judge made in the penultimate paragraph of the impugned judgment. Law is well settled that when something recorded in the order of the court transpires to be incorrect, the appropriate remedy for the aggrieved party is to approach the very same court so that the court will be in a position to verify and find out whether such grievance raised by the party concerned is correct or not. In view of the categorical observations made by the learned single judge, we are not in favour of accepting the said bald submission. Even otherwise, keeping in view the nature of allegation and the findings in the disciplinary proceeding, we hardly see any scope to come to a different conclusion and now it cannot be said that the punishment imposed upon the appellant is grossly excessive and requires interference. We do not see any reason to interfere with 5 the order passed by the learned single judge. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Neyaz/ (P.K. Misra, CJ.) (Anjana Prakash, J.)