IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.904 of 2010 1. Ganauri Das S/O Late Jagdanand Das R/O Vill-Aurai, P.S Puraini Bazar, Distt- Madhepura Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Home (Special), Govt. Of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna 3. The Inspector General Of Jails Bihar, Department Of Home, Main Secretariat, Patna ----------- 3. 29.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner who is stated to be an Assistant Jailor is aggrieved by the order of punishment as modified by the appellate authority on 17.10.2008. It visits him with the punishment of reduction to the minimum of the pay scale. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry report does not hold him guilty alone but along with others. The punishment was therefore excessive as it shall affect his pension etc ultimately also. It is fairly acknowledged that the others have been proceeded with departmentally also. The punishment being disproportionate to the offence this Court may modify the punishment suitably. Counsel for the State submits that the authorities have been more than fair to the petitioner when the original order of punishment which also 2 included stoppage of five increments and denial of promotions has been set aside by the appellate authority. The allegations were that three prisoners fled the jail after cutting the window bars with a hack saw blade. The instrument could not have gone inside the jail premises without the negligence of the official concerned. Enforcement of discipline in duty by appropriate administrative measures is the prerogative of the employer. It is not for the Court to redefine the administrative standards, moreso, when it concerns discharge of duties like the present. The quantum of punishment is the jurisdiction of the employer. It is not for the Court to substitute its views on what shall be the appropriate punishment in a given case. The Court cannot take over this role of the administrator. An order of punishment may be interfered only when it shocks the conscious of the Court. The Court finds it difficult to arrive at any such conclusion. Reference may only be made to in (2010) 5 SCC 775, (Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad) at Paragraph 14 as follows:- 3 “14. The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising the power of judicial review, the High Court or a Tribunal cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the disciplinary authority, and/or on appeal the appellate authority with regard to the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that would shock the conscience of the court/tribunal. The exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority or appellate authority is dependent on host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the discipline required to be maintained in the department or establishment he works. Ordinarily the court or a tribunal would not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.” The writ application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)