IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13164 of 2008 Ravindra Jha, son of Bhooj Narayan Jha, village Faridpur, PS Jamalpur, District Munger – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna. 2) The Home Commissioner, Bihar, Patna. 3) The Dy. Home Commissioner cum I.G. Prison, Bihar, Patna. 4) The Supdt. Of Special Central Jail, Bhagalpur. 5) The Supdt. Of Sub Jail, Sheikhpura. 6) The Supdt. Of Sub Jail, Darbhanga – Respondents. 2 19.5.2011 I.A. No. 2575 of 2011: This interlocutory application has been filed challenging the order, dated 20.2.2010 passed by respondent no.4, the disciplinary authority by which the petitioner has been found guilty for the alleged offences and reverted to his original pay scale by way punishment. This order has to be passed after remand by the appellate authority. The I.A. for amendment is allowed. The allegations against the petitioner is that he being a Warden of Sheikhpura Sub-jail allowed five unauthorized persons to enter the jail. An enquiry was conducted in which the enquiry officer has examined the five unauthorized persons who were present in the jail. All of them said that they entered the jail to give food to one of the inmates in the jail and while they were returning, the Deputy Superintendent of Police entered the jail premises. Obviously none of them knew the name of the person who allowed them to enter the jail. In the show cause it has been stated by the petitioner that he allowed the five persons to enter the jail on orders given by the Assistant Jailer Sri Sharma Nand Sharma. He has said that Sri Sharma had given him the keys of the 2 main gate and the Cell. Sri Sharma was not examined during the enquiry. It appears that Sri Sharma has been exonerated in a departmental enquiry although a criminal case is pending against him. The facts aforesaid disclose that in fact the petitioner admits that he had allowed the five unauthorized persons to enter the jail with a rider that he was directed to do so by Sri Sharma. The defence taken by the petitioner may or may not be believed since the delinquent has to put up some sort of defence. On the other hand, this court cannot help but notice that the Superintendent of Jail and the Assistant Jailer are Incharge of safety and administration of the jail premises. The responsibility obviously would not lie on the shoulder of the petitioner alone. In the circumstances this court does not feel inclined to interfere with the order of the disciplinary authority contained in Annexure 8. However, the petitioner has a statutory right to file an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority. In case the petitioner files an appeal along with the limitation petition, the appellate authority may consider the limitation petition sympathetically in view of the fact that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this court and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has retired on 30.4.2010 and he is not being paid his retiral dues etc. because of pendency of the proceeding I do not see any reason why the retiral dues has been 3 withheld in view of the fact that punishment has already been awarded to the petitioner. It can only be reduced and not enhanced in the facts of this case. This writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)