IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6131 of 2006 Dr. Anil Kumar Verma, son of Sri Ram Bilash Prasad Verma, Resident of Mohalla Sri Krishna Nagar, Qr. No. M/1, P.S. Budha Colony, Town & District of Patna. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Department of Health & Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Accountant General, Bihar, Beerchand Patel Marg, Patna. -------- Respondents ----------- 5 24.6.2011 Mr. Ambar Nath Banarji, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit the impugned order of punishment withholding 50% of pension of the petitioner cannot be sustained, inasmuch as, it is a wholly non- speaking order. He would explain the aspect that earlier the petitioner was inflicted punishment of 100% of forfeiture of his pension by an order of the State Government dated 18.5.1994 and this Court, having found the same to be solely disproportionate to the allegations and findings arrived at against the petitioner in support of the allegation, had quashed the same and remitted the matter to reconsider the quantum of punishment. He would accordingly submit that the order, 2 which was passed by the authority i.e. the impugned order, should have contained detailed reasons for withholding the amount of 50% of the pension. He has gone to analyze that why the authority had stopped 50% and not 5% would not be decipherable and, therefore, the punishment of withholding of 50% pension cannot be sustained by this Court, inasmuch as, the same lacks any reason. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, would submit that from the Enquiry Report, it is clear that the petitioner, being the Deputy Superintendent of Hospital, was responsible for putting the Government money of more than rupees ten lac at stake as is the findings of the Enquiry Officer. He has also pointed out that this Court also did not find any other error in the earlier part of the impugned order passed on the aforesaid Enquiry Report holding the charge against the petitioner to be proved and in fact the matter was remitted back only on the issue of quantum of punishment. He would, accordingly, submit that there would be no requirement in 3 such cases to pass further reasoned order, inasmuch as, the reasons in support of the order withholding 100% pension was already communicated and that even after being assailed by this Court was not found to be bad on any other score save and except on the issue of quantum of punishment. From the order, in question, dated 18.5.2004, wherein, the petitioner was inflicted the forfeiture of his 100% pension, it would be clear that the charge against the petitioner was found to be proved and the disciplinary authority, being the State Government, after obtaining the opinion of the Public Service Commission, had passed the order of punishment in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Such order, despite being challenged before this Court in an earlier writ application by the petitioner, was neither found to be bad nor any of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer in the enquiry report was held to be vitiated. It thus becomes clear that the findings of the Enquiry Officer as with regard to the petitioner being responsible 4 for putting a sum of rupees ten lacs of the Government revenue at stake was also affirmed by this Court when the matter was remitted back only on the issue of quantum of punishment. It, therefore, cannot be said that there was an open remand which required the Government to pass a fresh reasoned order. The only requirement was to substitute the order of punishment of forfeiture of 100% pension by its reduction. The authorities, having thus passed an order of reduction of pension to 50%, have not committed any error. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit the Government has passed the order of punishment in other similar case of M.S.D. Scam by forfeiting the pension only 5% to 10%. Unfortunately, there is neither any pleadings on this score nor any pleading of discrimination has been raised on the quantum of punishment. This Court is not aware as to in which of the M.S.D. case, the concerned delinquents have been given lesser punishment. If, however, the petitioner is so sanguine about this aspect that a the person having graver allegation have been given 5 lesser punishment, he will have the liberty to raise only this question of discrimination in punishment on the same charge by filing a representation explaining that his misconduct was far lesser than the others who were given lesser punishment despite having a graver misconduct. It goes without saying that if the petitioner files such a representation questioning the quantum of punishment, the same will receive appropriate consideration of the competent authority. With the aforesaid observations and liberty, this application is dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)