IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8532 of 1996 KRISHNA KUMAR KAMAL SON OF LATE BIJHAWAN RAM, SECTOR 3, MIG, BLOCK NO. 6, QUARTER NO. 14, HOUSING COLONY, BAHADURPUR, AGAMKUAN, PATNA. Versus 1. STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, PATNA. 2. SPECIAL SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. ----------- 5 09/11/2010 Petitioner was an Executive Engineer posted at Durgawati Project in the district of Rohtas. He has now superannuated a years ago i.e. after filing of the writ application which related to imposition of certain punishment after holding a departmental enquiry. Order of punishment is annexure- 1 dated 8.8.1996. Petitioner wants quashing of this order. There were three kinds of punishment which came to be imposed, one was censure which was to be entered in his service book for the period 1987-88. This punishment has lost its meaning years ago. Second punishment was withholding of seven increments without cumulative effect. This order also has run out its course and, therefore, need not be interfered with. Final - 2 - punishment is recovery of Rs.46,113/- in 23 equal monthly instalments of Rs.2000/- each from the salary of the petitioner for the loss having been caused to the State by the petitioner to the extent of his liability alone. It is not a case where order of punishment has come to be passed or imposed upon the petitioner without following the procedure. They stood the charges of misdemeanour and malfeasance whereof so called Rs.2,87,015/- was spent in trying to get a machine repaired not only became a subject matter of departmental enquiry but also an enquiry by the Vigilance Department which ended in a criminal trial. A detailed enquiry was conducted. Based on the findings the disciplinary authority came to a considered opinion that a case for imposition of punishment was made out. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that so far charge no. 1 is concerned, the enquiry officer did not find the petitioner guilty and the disciplinary authority disagreeing with the enquiry report held the petitioner liable and punishment was imposed. Be that as it may, as already recorded, two of the punishment orders have lost their effect. So far as the - 3 - third charge is concerned, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order or sit in appeal or revision to quash the said order for more than one reasons. Petitioner was holding a responsible post and he had responsibility towards the State finance there. Petitioner cannot be absolved with the liability through and through. Even otherwise petitioner has superannuated years ago and has been granted his pension and other dues and he is enjoying a retiral life. Certain punishment imposed must remain for the indiscretion committed by him. The Court does not want to interfere with the impugned order as such. This writ application is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)