IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3719 of 2009 KRISHNA PRASAD VERMA SON OF LATE BARMESHWAR PRASAD VERMA RESIDENT OF MOHALLA JAPLEEN GANJ,BALELSHWAR GHAT ROAD BALIA(U.P.) AT PRESENT POSTED AS ADDL.DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE IST-CUM- SPECIAL JUDGE,BUXAR ------- PETITIONER Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2.THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT,PATNA THROUGH THE REGISTRAR GENERAL PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA 3.THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, PATNA HIGH COURT, PATNA 4.ACCOUNTANT GENERAL, BIHAR,PATNA BIR CHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA ------- RESPONDENTS ---- FOR THE PETITIONER : MR. ABHAY KUMAR SINGH FOR THE PATNA HIGH COURT : MR. D.K.SINHA FOR THE STATE : MR.YOGENDRA PD.SINHA,AAG 5 ----------- 7/ 05.10.2009 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner, learned senior counsel for the Patna High Court and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment awarded by the Patna High Court pursuant to a departmental proceeding against him for two charges relating to his tenure as Additional Sessions Judge at Chapra. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that in absence of any allegation or proof that the petitioner had granted bail to three accused persons whose prayer for bail was earlier rejected by the High Court on receipt of illegal gratification, he should not be held guilty of charge no.1. In respect of the same 2 charge, it was further submitted that since viscera report disclosed the presence of lorzepen drug, two opinions could have been possible and on the basis of presence of such drug in viscera, the order granting bail to the three accused in a case of murder was not unusual because of subsequent facts brought on record through the viscera report. In respect of charge no.2 which has been proved by the Enquiry Officer, it was submitted that the trial of accused in a criminal case relating to recovery of 90 Kgs. contraband charas could not be proved to have been closed in unusual haste and that materials on record have not been properly considered by the Enquiry Officer, particularly, the evidence of P.W.4, Additional Public Prosecutor who conducted the said trial. On going through the materials on record we find that the disciplinary proceeding has been conducted in accordance with law and the Enquiry Officer has taken into consideration all the relevant materials. Even if P.W.4 was not specifically discussed in respect of charge no.2, it does not take away the force of other materials 3 available on record which were found sufficient to prove the charge. On behalf of the Patna High Court it was submitted that the petitioner has himself brought on record through annexure-19 a subsequent notice indicating that the High Court was reconsidering the matter of punishment in view of delinquency already established. Such reconsideration on adequacy of punishment is not relevant for the purpose of considering the legality and propriety of the order of punishment impugned in this writ petition. On proper consideration of the submissions of the parties and the materials available on record, we find no reason to interfere with the order of punishment, according to which the petitioner has been held to be entitled to subsistence allowance only during the period of suspension and further his case shall not be considered for promotion for a period of three years. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) Tahir/- ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)