IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6352 of 2002 SHAMBHU PRASAD KHATRI Versus THE BIHAR SCHOOL EXAM.BOARD &ORS ----------- For the petitioner : Mr Rajendra Pd Singh,Sr. Advocate Mr Navjot Yashu, Advocate For the Board : Mr Arshad Alam, Advocate ----- 8. 24.02.2010 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board. The petitioner was proceeded with departmentally and is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 21/3/2002 reverting him to the basic grade of Assistant at the scale of Rs. 5500/- and that he shall be entitled to his pension accordingly. It need be noted that on the date of the order the petitioner was drawing the pay scale of Rs. 9175/- and would have been entitled to his pension on that basis. Learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy this Court of any procedural illegality in the departmental proceedings much less of a nature to his prejudice. Nonetheless the Court finds substance in the contention from the enquiry report that Sri Janak Singh to whom the petitioner was supposed to hand over charge was not available as he was on leave on certain dates and which also contributed to the delay in handing over of charge and verification of documents at the time of taking charge. Likewise, the enquiry officer has not arrived at any finding of a nature of negligence intentional in nature on the part of the petitioner making a culpability very high so as to amount to misconduct to visit him with the serious nature of punishment. In the evening of his life pension is the only source of his livelihood. At this stage to reduce his pension by reduction of his pay scale would certainly do irreparable harm to him. Misconduct as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary is: “A transgression of some established and definite rule of action, a forbidden act, a dereliction from duty, unlawful behavior, willful in character, improper or wrong behavior; its synonyms are misdemeanor, misdeed, misbehavior, delinquency, impropriety, mismanagement, offense, but not negligence or carelessness.” This Court is therefore satisfied that while declining to interfere with the order in so far as it finds him fit for punishment this Court simultaneously holds that the quantum of punishment appears totally disproportionate in the nature of the offence alleged in view of the fact that culpability of negligence does not appear so high for a major punishment. Without interfering with the reasons contained in the order dated 21.3.2002 that part of the order fixing quantum of punishment is set aside and the matter is remanded to the authorities to reconsider the quantum of punishment to be imposed in accordance with law within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order when it is expected that any further consequential action required in pursuance of such fresh decision shall also be taken by the respondents simultaneously without compelling the petitioner to have to approach this Court again. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)