IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1593 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 904 of 2010 ====================================================== Ganauri Das S/O Late Jagdanand Das, R/o Vill. Aurai, P.S. Purani Bazar, Distt. Madhepura .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Home (Special) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Main Secretariat,Patna 3. The Inspector General of Jails, Bihar, Deptt. of Home, Main Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha- I, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Siddhartha Prasad, A.C. to AAG-4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 09-11-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 29th August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 904 of 2010, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The matter at issue is punishment of reversion to the lowest stage in the pay-scale and withholding of five increments upon the appellant, a Jailor at the relevant time, in respect of an Patna High Court LPA No.1593 of 2011 (3) dt.09-11-2011 2 / 2 2 incidence of escaping of three prisoners by cutting the jail walls, imposed by the disciplinary authority. The said punishment was modified in departmental appeal to the extent that order of reduction in pay was upheld, whereas the order of withholding of five increments was set aside by the appellate authority. The only challenge was the proportionality of the punishment imposed upon the appellant. The learned single Judge did not find the punishment disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the appellant. Learned advocate Mr. Alok Kumar Sinha-I has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant was not held wholly responsible in the incidence in question; for the partial role attributed to the appellant the punishment of reduction of pay was too harsh. We see no substance in the submission. No case for interference is made out. Appeal is dismissed in limine. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)