IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.698 of 2007 Jagdish Chandra Pathak, Son of Yogendra Pathak, resident of L/47 Housing Colony, Lahariya Sarai, Darbhanga ---- Petitioner/Appellant. Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Commissioner, Darbhanga. 3. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 4. The Sub Divisional Officer, Darbhanga. 5. The Block Development Officer, Bahadurpur, Darbhanga. ------------ 4. 16.11.2009 Heard Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra for the appellant. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent of High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.11827 of 2006 (Jagdish Chandra Pathak Vrs. State of Bihar & Ors.), and is aggrieved by order dated 18.7.2007, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. The writ petitioner was at the relevant point of time functioning as Nazir in Sadar Sub Division, Darbhanga. He was suspected to have embezzled a sum of Rs.17, 12,805/- on one occasion, and Rs.3, 84,310 /- on another. He was subjected to one departmental proceeding and two criminal cases. He was in custody as under-trial prisoner for some time and trials are still pending. Learned enquiry officer submitted his report in the departmental proceeding wherein he found that the writ petitioner was guilty of embezzlement of the said amounts. Learned disciplinary authority accepted the report and imposed a punishment of deprivation of pension to the extent of 75% of his 2 entitlement. The petitioner’s departmental appeal has also been rejected leading to C.W.J.C. No.11827 of 2006. The same has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner raised issues which could be raised only before a forum of facts. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits before us that it appears from an order of the learned appellate authority that other persons have been involved too, and the writ petitioner has been imposed with a heavy punishment. It appears to us that there is no indication in the report of the learned enquiry officer that other persons were also involved. Even if others were involved, punishment to the extent of deprivation of pension to the extent of 75% is not disproportionate punishment in view of the proven charges. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. Vinay/ ( S. K. Katriar ,J. ) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.)