IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6274 of 2007 Arjun Prasad, age-60 years, S/o Late Badri Prasad, resident of village- Barihat, P.S. K. Hat, District Purnea .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Collector, Purnea 3. The Deputy Collector, District Record Room, Purnea 4. The Enquiry Officer (District Panchayat Raj Office), Purnea … Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner :M/s Manoj Kumar Ambastha & Pawan Kumar Sinha, Advocates For the State :Mr. Sajal Kumar Sinha, A.C. to S.C.-19 03/ 29.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. At the relevant time, petitioner served as Copyist, Class III employee in the Purnea Collectorate and was entrusted with the duty to issue certified copy of the documents kept in the Record Room. He has filed this writ petition questioning the order, bearing Memo No. 802 dated 19.3.2007, Annexure-1 withholding his 10% pension/ gratuity in the light of the findings contained in the enquiry report dated 17.9.2004 holding him guilty of violating Rule 333 of the Bihar Records Manual, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as the Manual). 3. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that at the relevant time he served as Copyist in the 2 Record Room and had issued certified copy of the Khatiyan on 23.12.2000 and as there was interpolation in the original Khatiyan, he had indicated over the certified copy that the entries made in the Khatiyan are doubtful and has also informed his superior, the Head Clerk about the interpolation in the original Khatiyan, but on instructions from the Head Clerk granted certified copy of the relevant entry in the Khatiyan as the certified copy was required for official purpose. Enquiry Officer having appreciated the stand of the petitioner, submitted report dated 17.9.2004 observing that for violation of Rule 333 of the Manual, Head Clerk is responsible, but petitioner also cannot be absolved of such violation as he failed to inform the Deputy Collector, Incharge of Record Room about the interpolation in the Khtiyan. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that as per the provisions of the Manual, petitioner had informed his superior, the Head Clerk about the doubtful nature of the entries in the Khatiyan, but as the Head Clerk asked him to issue the certified copy of the Khatiyan, which was required for official purpose, he issued the same. In this connection, learned counsel also submitted that Manual 3 does not require the Copyist to inform the Incharge of the Record Room about the irregularities in the document, but as a measure of abundant caution, petitioner did inform the Head Clerk about the irregularities in the Khatiyan. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed the prayer and states that petitioner being the Copyist was serving under the Deputy Collector and not the Head Clerk and as the Head Clerk had asked him to issue the certified copy of the Khatiyan ignoring the interpolation in the original document, it was the duty of the petitioner to have informed the Deputy Collector about such direction of the Head Clerk. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submitted that in any view of the matter loss having not been caused to the State Government because of the issue of the certified copy by the petitioner, withholding of 10% of pension and gratuity of the petitioner is very harsh and arbitrary infracting Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. Having heard counsel for the parties and having appreciated the rival contentions as also 4 considering the fact that petitioner had informed the Head Clerk about the interpolation in the original document and has also stated such fact over the certified copy that the entries are doubtful together with the fact that no monetary loss has been caused to the State Government, the punishment imposed on the petitioner under order dated 19.3.2007, Annexure-1 is quashed with further direction to the Collector, Purnea to consider the request of the petitioner for payment of A.C.P. amount in the light of the order, baring Memo No. 1005 dated 4.4.2007, Annexure-2 as early as possible, in any case within two months from the date of receipt of the representation for such payment. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. Arjun/ ( V. N. Sinha, J.)