IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5143 of 1997 JAIDEO PRASAD SINHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7/ 13/8/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally in 1989 on allegations of missing of certain official packets in his charge. Simultaneously, a criminal case in respect of the same packet was instituted against him registered as Alamganj P.S. Case No.81/88. The criminal investigation resulted in his exoneration by the criminal court. The law stands settled that findings in a criminal trial where the standard of proof is higher than that of a departmental proceeding, shall take precedence over the latter. Nonetheless, the petitioner was indicted in the departmental proceedings when the disciplinary authority remanded the matter for reasons of certain procedural irregularities in conduct of the departmental proceedings. The petitioner retired on 1.10.1999. A warning of punishment has been passed thereafter on 22.8.1991 i.e. after his superannuation. - 2 - It is difficult to appreciate the nature of the punishment given. While this departmental proceeding was pending at the stage of remand by the disciplinary authority, a fresh departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 5.7.1989. The allegations related to the year-1972. That the petitioner handed over a copy of the map to an outsider before its publication and that ink was poured over the map and interpolation made, which it is acknowledged, was corrected by the authorities subsequently. Equally it is not in controversy that in view of these alleged interpolations in the map no undue benefit was derived by any person or that no loss was occasioned to the Government. The latter departmental enquiry continued when about five enquiry officers were changed. It is urged that in this departmental enquiry despite the request of the petitioner to make available the maps in question to him or to allow inspection of the same which were granted by the enquiry officer, nonetheless, they were never made available to the petitioner. Two witnesses of the Department - 3 - deposed on the map during departmental proceedings subsequently, yet the copies of the maps were not given to the petitioner nor was he given an opportunity by adjournment after supply of copies to meet the same. Based on an enquiry conducted in this manner contrary to law a punishment of withholding of 50% of his gratuity and 10% of his pension came to be passed on 25.11.1992 after his superannuation. The appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Board of Revenue has been rejected only with a partial modification of the punishment, inasmuch as 10% of his gratuity has been directed to be withheld, and his pension and balance gratuity have been directed to be released with prospective effect. The salient aspects of the case are ‘punishment of warning to the petitioner after his superannuation in an earlier departmental proceeding’ reflecting the mindset of the authorities towards the petitioner. This, coupled with the fresh departmental proceeding nearly 17 years after the occurrence, when there are no serious allegations of any financial loss to the Government or undue - 4 - advantage to another, coupled with a departmental proceeding in which admittedly basic procedures of natural justice applicable in departmental proceedings were not followed, and which is not denied in the counter affidavit, and neither is there any material in the enquiry report to suggest to the contrary, this Court finds it difficult to uphold the order of punishment. The seriousness of the punishment for a retired employee cannot be lost sight of. Those who were proceeded against likewise for the same misdemeanours have been given the lighter punishment of a censure. The appellate authority in his order dated 30.1.1997 itself has noticed the irregularities in procedure in a departmental proceeding, but arrived at the conclusion that they were not sufficient to warrant interference with the punishment. It equally acknowledges that the guilt was a shared one. That the allegations were decades old. In the entirety of the facts and circumstances this Court is not satisfied that either the original order of punishment or that as modified by the Additional Member, Board of - 5 - Revenue is sustainable. The order as modified by order dated 30.1.1997 is accordingly set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all his arrears of gratuity and pension to be paid to him within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J )