IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4000 of 2010 1. SHIVA SHANKAR SINGH S/O LATE BINDESHWAR SINGH R/O VILL.- FANDA, P.S.- PAROO, DISTT.- MUZAFFARPUR, PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR, MAJHAULIA P.S., WEST CHAMPARAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION DEPARTMENT (C.I.D.), BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CHAMPARAN RANGE/REGION, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, BETTIAH SADAR-CUM- THE CONDUCTION OFFICER, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN, BETTIAH 7. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER, NARKATIAGANJ, DISTT.- WEST CHAMPARAN 8. MUNI LAL RAM, THE THEN OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF BAGAHA P.S. WEST CHAMPARAN, PRESENTLY POSTED AS OFFICER-IN- CHARGE OF BARIYARPUR P.S.- BARIYARPUR, DISTT.- MUNGER WITHIN BHAGALPUR POLICE RANGE ----------- 02. 23.09.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. After some arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in any event, the punishment was excessive and disproportionate to the allegations. Learned counsel for the State rightly submits that is the discretion of the employer. The occasion for the Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment may arise only if it is shockingly disproportionate to the conscience of the Court. The present does not appear to such a case 2 warranting interference by the Court itself. If the petitioner represents, on the quantum of punishment, that is an aspect to be considered by the administrator himself in its wisdom. The application stands dismissed. P.K. ( Navin Sinha, J.)