IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2074 of 2008 NAWLESH KUMAR . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2. 23.2.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 25.5.2006, visiting him with stoppage of one increment for a period of one year and that no salary was payable for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance but which period was otherwise to be counted in service. The petitioner was a G.R. Clerk in the Civil Court, at Bhagalpur. He was proceeded with departmentally on four charges and has been exonerated of charge nos. 2 and 3, but found guilty of charge nos. 1 and 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Enquiry Officer in his conclusion has held that in fact records since, 1990 were not deposited by the predecessor of the petitioner and which the petitioner deposited in the record room. The Enquiry Officer has further opined that given the work load, one more clerk was required in the office. The finding further is that the records were not being maintained properly since 2 long earlier. The petitioner permitted himself to be guided by wrong precedent. On charge no. 1, the Enquiry Officer has held that his act of filling up the columns erroneously was not an act of gross negligence or gross carelessness as the petitioner followed the earlier incorrect procedure. The petitioner on both charges was therefore not guilty of gross negligence or gross carelessness. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that during the enquiry the petitioner admitted his mistake both on charge nos. 1 and 4. The moment he admitted the charge, nothing more remained to be proved. The errors committed in the past also have adequately been considered by the disciplinary authority and punishment imposed in light of the same. An incorrect procedure or error wrongly followed earlier was not a sufficient defence. Undoubtedly, the punishment is minor. In exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, this Court on facts of a case may decline to interfere with an order of minor punishment even if this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has a case to assail the punishment. The law stands settled that in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction this Court can refuse to interfere with an order, which may otherwise warrant interference. 3 But when a citizen comes to the Court, seeks justice, aggrieved by certain actions when others acknowledged to be similarly situated have either not been proceeded with or have been accorded any differential treatment, the matter becomes different. The Court is then required to dispense justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly emphasized that the enquiry report or the order of punishment does not take into consideration any material of the nature that those who had committed this mistake earlier in point of time and which was the guided precedent for the petitioner, even a single person has been proceeded with appropriately. While this Court is satisfied not to interfere with the punishment on the admission of the petitioner, this Court is equally satisfied that as far as quantum of punishment is concerned, the contention that he has been singled out for such treatment merits appropriate consideration. The matter is, therefore, remanded to the District Judge, Bhagalpur, to reconsider the order of punishment on the quantum only. If the District Judge finds that even a solitary case of appropriate action whatsoever be their against those who had committed similar misconduct as alleged against the petitioner 4 earlier, the quantum of punishment shall require no interference. But if he comes to the conclusion that those before the petitioner who had committed errors and which was the precedent on which the petitioner had acted in that event, he shall require to reconsider the quantum of punishment. This Court without interfering with the order of punishment set aside the same on the quantum only as also affirmed in appeal for the purposes of such fresh reconsideration limited to the issue of quantum only, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application stands disposed. P. Kumar (Navin Sinha, J.)