IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.597 of 2011 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Main Secretariat, Patna, 2. The Deputy Secretary, Personnel and Administration Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Main Secretariat, Patna, Now known as General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, 3. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, … … Respondents/Appellants Versus SURENDRA PRASAD son of late Markandey Saw, resident of village Maldah, P.S. Barbigha, District Sheikhpura … Writ Petitioner / Respondent For the Appellants: Mr. Jai Shankar Barnwal, SC I Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, AC to SC I For the Respondlent: Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Adv. ----------- 4 11.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner. By the order under appeal, the Writ Court has upheld the findings in respect of the charges against the writ petitioner, but has interfered with the order of punishment, which was that of dismissal from service, after recording its views that the punishment is grossly excessive and disproportionate and shocks the conscience of the Court. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of the State Bank of India and others v. Samarendra Kishore Endow and another, (1994) 2 Supreme Court Cases, 537 is to the 2 effect that power of judicial review is only for a review of the manner in which decision is made and to ensure that the authorities had acted within their jurisdiction and hence, if the order of punishment has been passed in a fair manner within the jurisdiction available with the disciplinary authority, no interference should be made with the penalty in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In reply learned counsel for the writ petitioner has referred to the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of (i) B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others, (1995) 6 Supreme Court Cases, 749, (ii) State of Gujarat v. Anand Acharya alias Bharat Kumar Sadhu, (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases, 310 and a judgment by one of us (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) in the case of Dr. Noorul Ahad v. State of Bihar and others, 2008(3) Patna Law Journal Reports, 450 in support of the views adopted by the Writ Court that interference with punishment in a disciplinary proceeding is generally unwarranted unless the punishment is found to be shocking to the judicial conscience. This view has been arrived at in the case of Dr. Noorul Ahad (supra) after referring to some recent Supreme Court judgments. 3 There is no difficulty in appreciating the legal propositions, noticed above, that ordinarily, this Court should not interfere with the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority unless there are rare features in the case which go to show clearly that the punishment is excessive and shocking to the judicial conscience. Difficulty lies in arriving at a proper conclusion on the basis of facts of a case whether to interfere or not on the basis of settled principle of law. In this case, the learned Writ Court has considered the nature of charges against the writ petitioner as well as his defence and the findings of the inquiry officer. Thereafter the Writ Court has come to the view that the punishment is grossly excessive and disproportionate and shocks the conscience of the Court. We find no good reasons to enter into thicket of facts to explore the possibility of another view when that of the Writ Court is a probable and just view. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. SC (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)