IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1855 of 2006 10 22.10.2008 Ram Bachan Mishra son of late Manika Mishra, resident of village Barka Rajpur, PS Ssimri via Dumrawn District Buxar .... Petitioner VERSUS 1. The State of Bihar through Secretary Department of Water Resources, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Kosi Project, Sakari Madhubani 4. The Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sone Project, Sasaram 5. The Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Department, Government of Bihar. .... Respondents. ----- For the Petitioner : Mr Md. Khurshid Alam, Advocate For the State : M/s Anil Kumar Jha, GA 2 with SK Mishra, JC to GA 2 ----- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. On going through the materials on record including memo of charges, the enquiry report, second show cause notice and the impugned order of punishment dated 7.6.2005, this Court finds that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner suffers from no procedural or legal infirmity. After adequate opportunity the charges against the petitioner were found proved and the conclusions of the enquiry officer have been accepted by the disciplinary authority leading to award of three punishments by impugned order contained in Annexure- 2 9. The three punishments are- (i) Withholding of 50 per cent pension (2) Withholding of 100 per cent gratuity and (3) Withholding of salary and other allowances during suspension period. The punishments are merely in relation to pensionary benefits because admittedly petitioner retired on 31.1.2005 before the impugned order of punishment could be passed. From the charges as well as enquiry report this Court finds that petitioner was not the sole person responsible for the financial delinquency and misappropriation. A superior officer, Mr Ashok Kumar Verma, the then Special Land Acquisition Officer, Sone Project, Sasaram was also alleged to be involved in charge no.1 and 2 which are the major charges involving loss of Rs.2338524/- and Rs.287000/-. During hearing of this writ petition, in view of apparent involvement of the then Special Land Acquisition Officer this Court made enquiries as to whether any punishment had been awarded to the said official in any departmental proceeding relating to these matters. This was in view of averments made in the writ petition. After several orders ultimately this Court was informed through Annexure-I to a counter affidavit filed on 10.9.2008 that the departmental proceeding against the said officer had also come to a final stage and opinion of the Bihar Public Service Commission has 3 been sought through Annexure-I in respect of proposed punishment to the said official. Annexure-I dated 4.9.2008 shows that the proposed punishment is stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Girish Chandra Sarma, (2007) 7 SCC 206 to submit that one person alone cannot be made scapegoat for collective decisions in which others also participated and if others are left out of the proceeding and not punished it may invalidate the penalty awarded to one. It cannot be doubted that when a departmental proceeding is conducted in accordance with law, this Court cannot act as a Court of appeal. But if the State or its agencies violate Article 14 and unreasonably hold only one person alone responsible for a collective decision, this Court in appropriate cases and in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may interfere. In the present case, there was a decision to proceed against the Special Land Acquisition Officer but the proceeding was being delayed. Now, as appears from Annexure-I the proceeding has reached almost the final stage and the proposed punishment is available to this Court. That 4 punishment itself shows that the superior officer who appears involved in the entire transaction, particularly relating to Rs.23.38 lakhs has been proposed to be awarded a much lighter punishment of stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect when after superannuation the petitioner has been made to suffer stoppage of 50 per cent of pension and entire amount of gratuity. The punishment awarded to the petitioner, a clerical employee, in comparison to the punishment proposed to be awarded to the Special Land Acquisition Officer appears to be unreasonable and disproportionate. Hence, the finding that the charges have been proved against the petitioner is not interfered but the matter of award of suitable punishment is remitted back to the concerned disciplinary authority for reconsideration to ensure that there is a proportion and parity between penalty which may be awarded to this petitioner with the penalty which may be awarded to the Special Land Acquisition Officer. It is expected that a fresh order in respect of penalty to the petitioner shall be passed at an early date, preferably within four months from the date of production/ communication of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk 5