IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9622 of 2001 AWADHESH PRASAD Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 4 24.9.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted that although disciplinary proceeding appears to have been conducted as per law but considering the charge that petitioner was absent from duty from 22.3.2000 till 7.4.2000 and petitioner’s explanation that he received sudden intimation about illness of his wife and had to rush to attend her, the award of punishment is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. It appears that by the impugned order dated 25.4.2001 passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda in Departmental Proceeding Case No.1/2000-01 the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges and has been awarded stoppage of three annual increments with cumulative effect and reduction in the pay scale by one grade. The materials on record show that there is no allegation that petitioner is a habitual defaulter in attending to his duties and it further appears that on his return after 7.4.2000 2 he again attended his duties as per directions of the superior authority. In the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded back to the disciplinary authority, the District Magistrate, Nalanda, respondent no.2, to reconsider quantum of punishment which appears to be excessive and disproportionate to the gravity of the charges. Hence, the part of the impugned order contained in Annexure-7 relating to the award of punishment to the petitioner is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2, the District Magistrate, Biharsharif, Nalanda, for passing a fresh order in respect of punishment on the basis of all the facts and circumstances and the observations made in this order. Such order should be passed expeditiously and preferably within three months from the date of communication/ production of a copy of this order. If the punishment is reduced then the consequential benefits should be given to the petitioner without delay. The writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) sk