IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22000 of 2011 ====================================================== Gyan Kumar Ram, son of late Hira Lal Ram, resident of Village and PO – Nadawan, District - Buxar .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 2. The Dy. Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 3. The Under Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, 4. The Commissioner, Koshi Deivision, Saharsa, 5. The District Magistrate, Madhepura, 6. The District Magistrate, Siwan, 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Uda Kishanganj, Madhepura .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Sinha, AC to GA 10. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 2 13-12-2011 The petitioner, then a Block Development Officer, was charge sheeted for negligence in duty. It was alleged that while the petitioner was posted as the Block Development Officer under the Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Pramandal, Alamnagar Block, Madhepura, in the month of September 2008, the Block was badly hit by floods in Koshi river. At that time the petitioner absented himself from service and had thus neglected his duty. The action/inaction of the petitioner amounted to dereliction in duty and lack of Patna High Court CWJC No.22000 of 2011 (2) dt.13-12-2011 2 / 3 2 devotion to duty. An additional charge was also framed that during the period of suspension, the petitioner did not remain present at the Headquarter. After due enquiry, the three charges of remaining absent from duty; of dereliction in performing duty and of not remaining present at the Headquarter were held to be proved. For the aforesaid guilt proved against the petitioner, under the Government Resolution dated 19th May 2011, he has been visited with punishment of withholding of four increments with cumulative effect and the period of suspension is treated as such. The petitioner has not been allowed the service benefits except the subsistence allowance for the period spent under suspension. Therefore, this petition. Learned Advocate Mr. Mohan Kumar Singh has appeared for the petitioner. Mr. Singh has submitted that the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner is unsustainable. During the period of flood, the petitioner had suffered injury. The petitioner, therefore, could not report for duty. In support thereof, the petitioner had produced medical record. The said medical record has not been considered by the disciplinary authority. He has also assailed the finding of guilt in respect of leaving the Headquarter during the period of suspension. He has submitted that although the petitioner was present at the Headquarter, he was not allowed to sign the muster. The reply to the show cause notice submitted by the petitioner has not been considered by the disciplinary authority. I have perused the enquiry report and the order of punishment. It is evident that the evidence produced by the petitioner and his reply have been considered by the enquiry officer as well as the disciplinary authority. True, the defence put Patna High Court CWJC No.22000 of 2011 (2) dt.13-12-2011 3 / 3 3 forth by the petitioner has not been accepted by the disciplinary authority. While exercising power of judicial review conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution, it is beyond the jurisdiction of the High Court to reappreciate the evidence in the disciplinary proceeding and to record its own finding to substitute the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority. In absence of any procedural irregularity in the conduct of the disciplinary proceeding, this Court has limited power of interference. As recorded hereinabove, the petitioner exhibited lack of devotion to duty, particularly, at the hard time when his service was most required. In the above circumstances, neither the order of punishment nor the quantum of punishment calls for interference by this Court. For the aforesaid reason, the petition is summarily rejected. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ)