IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1817 of 2010 1. LAL BAHADUR RAM S/O LATE JADU RAM R/O SRINAGAR,P.S.SIWAN MUFASSIL, DISTT-SIWAN Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL )DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, CABINET(VIGILANCE)DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE -CUM-INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ,HEADQUARTER BIHAR,PATNA 6. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL , SPECIAL VIGILANCE UNIT ,PATNA CUM INQUIRY OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENTAL INQUIRY 7. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL ,CABINET(VIGILANCE)DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 8. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL ,CABINET(VIGILANCE)DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 9. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CABINET(VIGILANCE)DEPARTMENT ,GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 10. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HOME (SPECIAL )DEPARTMENT null GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 11. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, HOME (POLICE)DEPARTMENT null GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA ----------- 2. 5.8.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner is that the charge in the Departmental proceeding was that he had sworn a wrong affidavit with the intention to aid the accused in the trial. The finding of the enquiry officer is that the petitioner had signed the affidavit which is admitted by him but the finding also is that it was a bona fide mistake not done intentionally. 2 The punishment imposed is stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect and that during the period of suspension nothing beyond substance allowance shall be payable. Learned counsel submits that in view of the nature of the finding of the enquiry officer the punishment is excessive and therefore the petitioner proposes to represent on the issue of quantum of punishment only. Counsel for the State rightly submits that the quantification of the punishment is the prerogative of an employee. If the petitioner represents on the issue of quantum of punishment only, let the respondents consider the same and dispose it off by a reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of such representation with copy of such order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)