IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.29 of 2007 KAILASH PRASAD, Son of Late Balgobind Prasad, Resident of Old Ward No.-3, New Ward No.- 10, Bhabhua, District- Kaimur ------- Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. The Secretary-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Registration Department, New Secretariat (Bikash Bhawan), Bailey Road, Patna. 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Registration Department, New Secretariat (Bikash Bhawan), Bailey Road, Patna. 4. Mr. D.S. Upadhaya, Then Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna (Now Retired) C/O The Secretary-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Registration Department, New Secretariat (Bikash Bhawan), Bailey Road, Patna. 5. Mr. Shashi Shekhar Mishra ‘Diwakar’, Then Inspector of Registration Offices-cum-Conducting Officer, Patna Pramandal, Vikash Bhawan, Patna-15, Now posted as the Inspector of Registration Offices-cum-Conducting Officer, Koshi Pramandal, Saharsa. 6. The Collector-cum-District Registrar, Kaimur, Bhabhua. 7. The District-Sub-Registrar, Kaimur, Bhabhua. 8. Mr. Abhimanyu Kumar Rai, Then District-Sub-Registrar, Kaimur, Bhabhua, Now the District-Sub-Registrar, Aurangabad. ------- Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. S.K. Verma, Advocate For the State :- Mr. (A.A.G. 3) 13 18.3.2009 Heard the parties. On going through the judgment under appeal dated 10.11.2006 and other materials available on record, we find that the charges levelled against the appellant were rightly treated to have been proved. The only submission which has engaged our attention is that since the charge was ultimately only of negligence in duty, whether the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The charge sheet available as annexure-12 in the writ petition shows that 2 four charges were framed against the petitioner and out of that three have been found to be proved. At the relevant time petitioner was a Clerk in the Sub-Registry Office at Kaimur (Bhabhua). According to the proved charges three documents given to an extra Clerk Sri Kumud Kant Agrawal for copying were lost. Since the documents were given for copying to Mr. Agrawal by the petitioner as the concerned Clerk, he allegedly caused delay of 24 days in reporting the matter to the Sub-Registrar. The substance of the three charges appears to be that the petitioner was negligent in his duty which led to loss of the three documents by the extra Clerk who has admittedly been punished by disengaging him from the work of extra Clerk. It has been shown from the averments made in the writ petition, particularly paragraphs 4 and 5 that petitioner is a permanent Clerk since 22.12.1979 and was to superannuate on 31.4.2014. His service is said to have been meritorious without any complaint or adverse 3 entry except the incident leading to the charges against him. While considering the submission relating to quantum of punishment being disproportionate, our attention was drawn to an observation in the judgment under appeal that since loss of documents from Sub- Registry Office was a serious matter, the District Magistrate also made a report to the Government in the Department of Registration. Further enquiries were made and it transpired that in the said Registry Office it was common practice to allow the staff to take away the documents from the office for copying or for whatever purposes. No doubt this was a serious breach of the relevant rules as rightly observed by the learned writ Court, nonetheless it was submitted before us that for such practice in the Office the responsibility must rest with the Sub- Registrar who is Incharge of the Office and petitioner being only a Clerk was responsible only in following such common practice of the Office and such conduct has been viewed by the authorities also only as an act of 4 negligence and not of deliberate disregard of the rules. Having considered all the relevant facts and circumstances relating to the charges and the service of the petitioner, we find ourselves in agreement with the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Dev Singh Vs. Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2003)SCC 9 that in absence of any ulterior motive, the loss of documents by another extra Clerk should not warrant punishment of dismissal and such punishment shocks judicial conscience. Hence punishment of dismissal is set aside and the matter of awarding appropriate punishment to the petitioner is remitted back to respondent no. 2, The Secretary-cum-Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Registration Department, New Secretariat (Bikash Bhawan), Bailey Road, Patna. We make it clear that on account of setting aside of order of dismissal, the petitioner shall be entitled to be reinstated in service but he would not be paid any monetary benefits for the period he has 5 remained out of service on account of order of dismissal. However, he will be awarded continuity of service for other purposes like pension etc. Appropriate punishment in respect of petitioner should be passed by respondent no. 2 without any delay preferably within three months. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent only. Sanjay (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Sheema Ali Khan, J.)