IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1506 of 2006 SUKHDEO PRASAD, son of Late Sachidanand Sinha, Resident of Mohalla Sri Ram Path, New Jakkanpur, PS Jakkanpur, District Patna ………………. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Secretary, Department Personnel, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Dy. Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The Administrative Officer, Bihar State planning Commission, Patna 5. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna ……………. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Shekhar Singh, Advocate Mr. Hemant Kumar Karn, Advocate For the State : Mr Anil Kumar, JC to GP 16 ---- 2. 26.02.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State. The petitioner was placed under suspension and memo of charges issued on 8.11.1993. The charge related to non maintenance of books of accounts in the office leading to difficulty in reconciliation of accounts and expenditure statement. The petitioner superannuated on 1.1.1995 during pendency of the departmental proceedings which were then converted into one under 43B of the Bihar Pension Rules on 29./6.1998. An enquiry report dated 2.11.1994 came to be submitted holding the petitioner partially guilty in non maintenance of accounts even while observing that the records were not being maintained since much earlier by the other incumbent on the post and that the petitioner alone could not be faulted with for 2 the same. The finding of partial guilt was therefore recorded. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the same on 9.10.2002 which is stated to have remained pending. The enquiry report was followed by a second show cause notice when the impugned order dated 25.7.2002 came to be passed withholding his entire pension, gratuity and post retirement benefits. It was additionally decided to institute a civil proceeding against him for recovery of the amount. The petitioner came to this Court earlier aggrieved by the same in CWJC No. 10494 of 2003 which appears to have been tagged along with a batch of cased dealing with retirement benefits/death cum retirement benefits which was disposed on 26.9.2003 in terms of an earlier order of this Court dated 19.9.2003 in CWJC No. 7054 of 2003 and other analogous cases with general directions for redressal of his grievance. As a result the impugned order presently assailed never came to be tested before this Court earlier on its merits. Counsel for the State urged that there is a partial finding of guilt and that the petitioner has made no allegation of any procedural impropriety in the departmental proceedings warranting any interference by this Court with the order of punishment. The allegation against the petitioner did not relate to financial embezzlement or defalcation. The allegations were of non maintenance of record making it difficult to reconcile the 3 accounts and expenditure statement. The enquiry report holds him partially guilty even while recording that prior to joining of the petitioner also accounts were not being maintained properly. That may not absolve the petitioner, but is clearly a mitigating factor. When there are no allegation of financial embezzlement or defalcation, in an allegation of non maintenance of record existing since earlier for which the petitioner may have been negligent in discharge of his duties or may not have been cautious to the extent that he should have been, this Court considers the punishment excessively harsh and disproportionate to the allegations and findings. The petitioner has retired in 1995. No useful purpose shall now be served by directing disposal of his appeal. This Court has already held that there was no occasion for it to interfere with the order of punishment except on the issue of quantum. The impugned order dated 25.7.2002 is therefore set aside only on the issue of quantum of punishment and the matter is remanded to the delinquent au8thority to take a fresh decision after hearing the petitioner on the quantum of punishment keeping in mind the finding arrived at that there were no allegation of financial embezzlement or defalcation and that the punishment was therefore excessively harsh. For a retired person the importance of pension needs no emphasis. Withholding of even 5% of pension in case of a retired 4 government servant who has no other source of livelihood at that stage of life has been frowned upon by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Dayal Rai Vrs Jharkhand State Electricity Board & others, (2005) 3 SCC 501. Let such decision be taken by the disciplinary authority within a maximum period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)