IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.791 of 2008 ***** Dr. Binod Kumar Kashyap, Son of late Hari Narayan Lal, Resident of Gurhatta, Dr. Masuque Ali Road, P.S.- Khajekalan, Patna City, District- Patna, At present posted at P.H.C., Pothia, District-Kishanganj. … … Petitioner - Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health and Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Deputy Secretary, Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Health Patna Division, Patna. 5. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Bhabhua. … … Respondents-Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Brajesh Kumar, Advocate Mr. Gyan Shankar, Advocate ---------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 10th November, 2008. The appellant was posted as Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Durgawati, Kaimur, in the year 2003. An amount of Rs.11,30,000/- was withdrawn by him on 31st March, 2003 for payment of salary to the officers/employees. The said amount was not disbursed and without keeping the said amount in proper custody, he went on leave unauthorisedly, without permission from Civil Surgeon, Kaimur. On 3rd April, 2003 there was a theft in the Primary Health Centre, Durgawati and the said amount was stolen. The appellant was proceeded with the disciplinary enquiry with the - 2 - charge of negligence, indifference, lack of devotion to duty. The charge of negligence in discharge of duty having been found against the delinquent- appellant, upon conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry, an order of punishment came to be passed, which, inter alia, included stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect; recovery of 1/3rd of the amount of theft and payment of subsistence allowance during the period of suspension. 2. The order of punishment dated 16th November, 2004 came to be challenged by the appellant in the writ petition, which has been dismissed by the impugned order. 3. The senior counsel for the appellant would submit that no second show-cause notice and enquiry report was given to the delinquent. 4. We are afraid, the submission of the senior counsel for the appellant does not deserve to be examined as the said submission was not made before the Single Judge. The senior counsel would urge that the submission was in fact made before the Single Judge and a ground to that effect has also been set-up in the writ petition. Merely, because the ground has been set-up in the writ petition, it does not mean that it was pressed before the Single Judge. If it were so, the course open to the appellant was to bring this fact to the notice of the Single Judge by making an appropriate application for review, which admittedly has not been made. In the circumstances, we can reasonably hold that this submission was not pressed before the Single Judge. What transpires from the impugned order is that the contention raised before the Single Judge on behalf of the petitioner was that the order of punishment was disproportionate to the charges framed against - 3 - him. This aspect has been rejected by the Single Judge by consideration of the matter thus: - “Coming to the last of the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges framed against the petitioner, this Court would observe that the petitioner has not been held liable for refund of the entire amount of the theft, rather only 1/3rd amount of theft. This would only go to show that respondents had applied their mind even on the question of proportionality of the punishment. Similarly stoppage of only two increments on cumulative basis against a Drawing and Disbursing Officer who had left the headquarters without prior permission leaving a huge amount of cash withdrawn by him from treasury in custody of the Head Clerk of his office, cannot be said to harsh or excessive. An order of punishment of censure of such an officer was only logical outcome of the findings holding charge of negligence and dereliction of duty, to have been conclusively proved against the petitioner. The respondents in fact were fully justified for not paying the petitioner anything beyond subsistence allowance for the period of suspension, i.e. 5.9.2003 to 16.11.2004 after holding the petitioner guilty of charge.” 5. We find ourselves in agreement with the view of the Single Judge. No interference is called for in the impugned order. Letters patent appeal is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-