IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11402 of 2010 BALESHWAR DAS son of Late Karu Lal, resident of Mohalla- Shri Krishna Nagar, Road No. 23, North Western Extension, Patna ......Petitioner Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, North Block, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, North Block, New Delhi. 3. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Public Grievance and Pension, North Block, New Delhi. 4. The Under Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi. 5. The Special Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi. 6. The Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievance and Pension, Govt. of India, North Block, New Delhi. 7. The Union Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Dholpur House, New Delhi 8. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 9. The Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Government of Bihar, Patna. 10. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Government of Bihar, Patna. 11. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development, Government of Bihar, Patna 12. The Additional Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Government of Bihar, Patna. 13. The Departmental Enquiry Commissioner, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms Government of Bihar, Patna ...Respondents ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Rai, Advocate For the State: Mr. S. K. Ghosh, AAG II Ms. Sanghmitra Ghosh, AC to AAG II For the Union of India: Mr. Kameshwar Prasad Gupta, CGC For the UPSC: Mr. Kaushal Kishore Jha, Advocate ---------- 2 23-07-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar, learned counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel for the Union Public Service Commission. 2 At the relevant time petitioner was posted as District Magistrate, Sheikhpura which was a newly formed revenue district and lacked certain infrastructures. It is the plea of the petitioner that in the interest of administration some funds of Jawahar Rojgar Yojna had to be used for the construction of official residences of District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura. The case of the petitioner as pleaded before us is that even if the observation of the High Court in an earlier writ petition directing for proceeding against the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police are taken into consideration, the matter at hand did not involve an issue of integrity but only an issue of inefficiency. Sum and substance of arguments advanced before us is that after the petitioner retired from Indian Administrative Service, the punishment ultimately passed by the Union of India with the approval of the Union Public Service Commission imposing reduction of 25% in his pension for ten years was disproportionate to the gravity of the charge found proved in course of enquiry. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, 3 initially the Commissioner had suggested only for awarding punishment of censure but ultimately the competent authority has chosen a very harsh punishment affecting pension of the petitioner for ten years since his retirement on 30th September, 2000. We have perused the order of learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna whereby O.A. No. 367/2002 preferred by the petitioner against award of punishment has been dismissed on 1st December, 2009. Considering the said order and all other materials on record including the order of punishment dated 28-12-2001 contained in annexure-18, we find that there were no lapses or procedural illegality on the part of the authorities in holding the enquiry and so far the final order of punishment is concerned, it is a speaking order which shows in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 that entire records of enquiry were carefully scrutinized not only by the disciplinary authority but also by the Union Public Service Commission and thereafter findings were recorded that without obtaining approval of the concerned department the petitioner diverted the funds of D.R.D.A., Sheikhpura for constructing official 4 residences of District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Sheikhpura and was, thus, guilty of grave procedural lapse which comes within the purview of wrongful acts. It has also been indicated that due to diversification, the funds which were for development work could not be used for the same. On such consideration, the disciplinary authority has imposed the penalty under challenge. Imposition of the penalty in the present case required delicate balance of the fact that the employee had superannuated and no message should have been sent that diversification of development work without prior permission of the concerned department can be easily forgiven. In the facts of the case, we are not persuaded to interfere with the punishment because we do not feel that it is shocking to judicial conscience. Hence, we find no merit in this writ petition. It is, therefore, dismissed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)