IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4062 of 2010 1. RAMJI PRASAD S/O LATE SRI BUDHDEO PRASAD R/O HOUSE NO. 78, GANDHI PATH NORTH, S.K. PURI (SOURTH NEHRU NAGAR), P.O. AND P.S. PATLIPUR, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY OLD SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE JOINT SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MAGADH RANGE, GAYA 6. THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL BIHAR, BIRCHAND PATEL PATH, PATNA ----------- 2. 24.9.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, for the State and the Accountant General. While the petitioner was posted as the Section Officer in the office of D.I.G. Magadh Range, Gaya, he was charge sheeted on 25.6.2005 on two grounds. It primarily related to certain alleged interpolations made permitting a candidate to appear a second time in the physical test during the selection process after he had failed to qualify on the 1st occasion and laxity in co- ordinating with the local lawyer in sending a reply to the legal notice received on behalf of such candidate. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner on 14.7.2008 had requested to drop the charges in view of the fact that the entire selection process was cancelled 2 subsequently for other reasons. The petitioner has superannuated on 31.7.2007. No illegal benefit accrued to anyone by reason of the alleged act attributed to the petitioner. It cannot be classified as a case of serious or grave misconduct causing pecuniary loss to the Government so as to invite an order of punishment for withholding 20% of his pension for 10 years in exercise of powers under Rule 43(b) of the Pension Rules. Counsel for the State points out that the petitioner has admitted the charge. His defence has been disbelieved. This Court from the documents on record is satisfied that the petitioner admitted the charge. His defence has been disbelieved. Once the charge has been admitted, this Court does not consider it necessary to deal with the submissions of alleged irregularities in the departmental proceedings, about which also the Court in any event has its reservations. In (2008)5 SCC 569 (Chairman & Managing Director V.S.P. & Ors. Vs. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu, dealing with a punishment in a departmental enquiry where charges were admitted it has been held at Paragraph 16 as follows:- “16. ........He in his explanation, in answer to the charge sheet pleaded guilty admitting the charges. In terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act charges having been admitted were not required to be proved. It 3 was on that premise that the enquiry proceeding was closed.....” The only issue surviving now is of quantum of punishment. That normally is the prerogative of the employer. The proper course for the Court was to remand the matter unless for reasons of its satisfaction to be explained in the order, the Court itself considers proper to substitute the punishment with the appropriate quantum. It has been noticed that the alleged selection process in which the petitioner attempted to favour a candidate came to be cancelled. The alleged attempted favour did not result in any illegal appointment causing pecuniary loss to the Government. The petitioner has retired on 31.7.2007 and in the evening of his life has no other source of income except his pension. The misdemeanor by him can therefore be euphemistically described as an attempt. He additionally deserves to be left in solitude after retirement considering his 33 years of unblemished service. The Supreme Court (2005)3 SCC 501 dealing with 5% cut in pensionary benefits under 43(a) of the Bihar Pension Rules has held at Paragraph- 17 as follows:- “17. If the pensioners benefit is cut at 5% out of the total amount of pension payable to the appellant the appellant will suffer an irreparable loss and 4 injury since, after retirement, the pensionary benefit is the only amount available to eke out a livelihood for the retired employees of the Government.” This Court therefore in the entirety of the matter is satisfied that to impose a punishment of withholding 20% of the pension for 10 years is grossly disproportionate. This Court therefore modifies the final order of the revisional authority dated 11.2.2010 by directing withholding of 5% pension of the petitioner for one year. The writ application is allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)