LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.979 OF 2006 ------------ Against the judgment and order dated 04.05.2006 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 7357 of 2003. ------------- RAMAPATI ARYA son of Late Raja Ram Arya, resident of Village Dhowachhawan, P.S. Nawanagar, Dist. Buxar ……….Appallant Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.Deputy Secretary-cum-Chief Controlling Officer, Department of Water Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.Engineer-in-Chief, Water Resources, Bihar , patna. 4.The Chief Engineer (mechanical), Water Resources, Bihar, Patna. 5.Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) irrigation Department, CircleMuzaffarpur, Muzaffar. 6.Executive Engineer (mechanical) Irrigation Department, Chapra Division, Chapra. ….Respondents. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. D.K.Sinha, Sr. Advocate For the Respondents. : Mr. Prabhat Kr. Singh, S.C. 21 Ravi Kumar A.C. to S.C. 21. ------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA Shiva Kirti Singh & B.P. Verma, JJ Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been preferred under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent of this Court against the order of the writ court dated 4.5.2006 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant inviting interference with the order of dismissal was dismissed. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the appellant that at the relevant time the appellant was posted as Divisional Cashier, Irrigation Department, Chapra Division, - 2 - Chapra and he has taken a firm stand before the Superintending Engineer as well as before the authority conducting the departmental proceeding that amount of Rs. 13,59,293.00 had been forcibly taken from the chest under the custody of the appellant by the Executive engineer who also took away the cash-book in the month of August 1999 and, therefore, the appellant could not make any entry of expenses from the month of August 1999 to November, 1999. It was further submitted that after the appellant truthfully replied the letter of Superintending Engineer dated 13.12.1999 that he could not produce the cash register, receipt etc. due to aforesaid reason, the Superintending Engineer asked the appellant to lodge first information report and such order was complied with by the appellant. On such submission, learned counsel for the appellant tried to persuade us to take a view that even if the charges be accepted as true, the appellant has only been charged with the allegation of being in collusion with the Executive Engineer and not with the charge of defalcation and hence the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. 4. Further submission on behalf of the appellant is that the order of punishment dated 21.9.2001 (annexure-9) does - 3 - not show that the second show cause submitted by the appellant was given due consideration. Same was the grievance raised in respect of the appellate order dated 24.4.2003 (annexure-12). 5. Considering the significance of the later submission, we think it proper to consider the same at the first instance. A careful perusal of the order of punishment dated 21.9.2001 shows that the disciplinary authority has applied his mind to the show cause and thereafter analyzed the fact for holding that the charges levelled against the appellant had been found to be true. A gist of the relevant fact has also been given in the order of punishment. Similarly, perusal of the appellate order shows that it is not a formal order rejecting the appeal, rather it has considered various claims made in the memorandum of appeal with due reference to the facts as per the department on the relevant aspect. Thus after considering the relevant facts in a tabular form the appeal was dismissed on merits. Hence we find no substance in the submission that the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority has passed the order of punishment or the order rejecting the appeal in a mechanical manner without application of mind. 6. So far as the plea of punishment being - 4 - disproportionate is concerned, the charges have to be appreciated in the context of responsibility of the appellant as a Divisional Cashier whose task was to maintain financial discipline and take care of the money and registers under his custody. It was a responsible post of trust which the appellant occupied and the charges, in the context of such responsibility, appear to be sufficiently grave so as not to warrant any interference by this court. It is well settled in law that court should interfere with the quantum of punishment only when the punishment is so disproportionate so as to shake its judicial conscience. We do not find this case to be of such a nature and hence are not inclined to direct the respondents authorities to reconsider the punishment. 7. In the result, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) ( Birendra Prasad Verma, J. ) Patna High Court The 22nd July 2010 Rahman/NAFR