IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1436 of 2010 1. SIMA KUMARI W/O RAKESH KUMAR R/O VILL KADIRGANJ, SANGAT, ANDAR BAZAR, P.S.&DISTT-NAWADAH Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR , THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY SOCIAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, SECRETARIAT, PATNA 2. DISTRICT -MAGISTRATE NAWADAH 3. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER, CHILD DEVELOPMENT SECTION NAWADAH COLLECTORIAT, NAWADAH 4. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME OFFICER NAWADAH SADAR,NAWADAH 5. SMT. DEVAMANI DEVI W/O SHRAWAN KUMAR R/O VILL ANDAR BAZAR KADIRGANJ, P.S. &DISTT-NAWADAH ----------- 2/ 27/07/2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also for respondent No5 who has appeared suo motu. The petitioner is an Angan Bari Sahayika. Respondent No.5 is the Angan Bari Sevika. They are both posted at the Angan Bari Centre No.173 at Sangat Kadirganj, district- Nawada. There appears to have been some dissension between the two of them leading to male members of the two families jumping into the fray. This fact is more than evident from the order of the District Programme Officer dated 17.9.2008 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service while respondent No.5 has been visited with the punishment of stoppage of her honorarium for one week and warning. A First Information Report has been registered by the husband of respondent No.5 against the husband of the petitioner under Sections-323 and other provisions - 2 - of Indian Penal Code. The fact of the matter is that the petitioner is not an accused in the criminal case. Both the counsel for the State and respondent No.5 have taken the objection of an alternative remedy of appeal available to the petitioner before the District Magistrate. This Court is not persuaded in exercise of its discretionary writ jurisdiction in the nature of the controversy with differentiation done in between the petitioner and respondent No.5 insofar as the punishment is concerned to relegate her to the alternative remedy of appeal. The finding of the District Programme Officer is that it was the male members of both sides who indulged in the altercation. It also records that the petitioner was not directly involved in the altercation. If the male members only from both sides were involved in the altercation, the petitioner and respondent No.5 stand at par. That the respondent No.5 may have suffered injuries when the petitioner may have got away lightly shall not make any substantial difference to the issue before this Court. This Court is satisfied that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is grossly disproportionate. Normally, the quantum of punishment - 3 - is the discretion of the disciplinary authority and it is not for the Courts to interfere unless on the facts of a case for reasons to be noticed the Court itself interferes with the quantum. The present is one such case. The allegations are not serious at all and stand admitted. There is no direct involvement of the petitioner. She stands at par with respondent No.5. The petitioner has already worked as an Angan Bari Sevika and her experience is naturally an asset in running of the centre. If there be any allegations of malfunctioning at the centre, the petitioner and respondent No.5 are both equally answerable for it in the nature of acrimony between them. Keeping all the aforesaid factors in mind, this Court is not persuaded to remand the matter on the issue of quantum of punishment to the disciplinary authority. The order of punishment of dismissal imposed upon the petitioner dated 17.9.2008 is accordingly set aside. The petitioner is put at par insofar as the punishment is concerned with that imposed upon respondent No.5 which her counsel states she has not questioned. The writ application stands allowed. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)