Anil Kumar vs The State Of Bihar
2025 Latest Caselaw 4712 Patna

Patna High Court

Anil Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 12 December, 2025

Author: Sandeep Kumar

Bench: Sandeep Kumar

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2237 of 2023
     ======================================================
     Anil Kumar S/o Late Jai Narayan Prasad Resident of Village- Ward-27, Gali
     No.-3, Dr. D. Nath Manaspur, Azad Nagar, P.O. and P.S.- Patohi, District-
     East Champaran at Motihari, Presently Posted as the Accounts Clerk at Rural
     Works Department, Works Division, Moharram Chowk, West Champaran at
     Bettiah.
                                                                ... ... Petitioner
                                       Versus

1.   The State of Bihar Through the Additional Chief Secretary, Rural Works
     Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Vishveshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna.
2.   The Special Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna,
3.   The Appellate Authority, Engineer in Chief (Disciplinary Authority) Rural
     Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Vishveshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna.
4.   The Engineer in-Chief-3 cum-Enquiry Officer, Rural Works Department,
     Govt. of Bihar, Patna, Vishveshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna.
5.   The Engineer in Chief-4 cum the Presenting Officer, Rural Works
     Department, Vishveshwaraiya Bhawan, Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondents
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner    :       Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate
     For the Respondents   :       Mr. Ajay, G.A.-5
     ======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR
                         C.A.V. JUDGMENT
                                Date : 12-12-2025

                     In this case, the petitioner has assailed the order

      contained in memo no.715 dated 08.06.2021 passed by the

      Engineer-in-Chief -cum- Disciplinary Authority, by which the

      petitioner has been awarded the punishment of demotion to the

      lowest pay scale Level- 4 till his superannuation and it was

      directed that no increment shall be paid to him during this

      period. The petitioner has also assailed the appellate order dated
 Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025
                                           2/21




         23.8.2022

passed by the Special Secretary, Rural Works

Department, Government of Bihar, Patna, by which the appeal

preferred against the order of punishment has been dismissed.

The petitioner has also prayed for directing the respondent

authorities to pay full salary as well as the arrears of salary from

the date of suspension along with other momentary benefits.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was

appointed on compassionate ground to the post of Lower Grade

Accounts Clerk in the Rural Works Department. The

Department had constituted a Four Men Committee to examine

the account books and financial transactions for the last 7 years

in different work divisions. Finding certain discrepancies, an

explanation was sought from the petitioner, to which he had

submitted his explanation. However, the explanation submitted

by the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly,

he was placed under suspension vide order dated 12.11.2020.

Thereafter, vide order dated 13.11.2020, a departmental

proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and a memo of

charge and other relevant documents were served upon the

petitioner. Against the petitioner, altogether six charges were

levelled, which are as under:-

" dk;Z çeaMy] vjsjkt varxZr fiNys lkr o"kksaZ dh ys[kk iqfLrdk ,oa laO;ogkj dh tk¡p dk;Zikyd Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

vfHk;ark] xq.koÙkk çca/ku] xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx dh v/; {krk esa xfBr tk¡p ny }kjk dh x;hA çkIr tk¡p çfrosnu fnukad ds leh{kksijkUr ekeys esa Jh vfuy dqekj] jksdM+iky] dk;Z çeaMy] vjsjkt fuEu vkjksiksa ds fy, nks"kh ik;s x;s gSa&

1- fcgkj foÙkh; fu;ekoyh dh dafMdk 265 ds rgr jksdM+ cgh ekfld cUn gksuk pkfg, rFkk var'ks"k dk Break up ekg ds var esa gksuk pkfg,A jksdM+ cgh ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd jksdM+cM+h ds çR;sd ekg ds var esa vafre 'ks"k ugha fudkyk x;k gS rFkk vafre 'ks"k ij dk;Zikyd vfHk;ark dk gLrk{kj ugha gSA lkFk gh vafre 'ks"k esa dVkSrh dh jkf'k dk Break up ugha n'kkZ;k x;k gSA mnkgj.kLo:i vafre 'ks"k esa SD / PSD/Royalty/Labour cess/Income Tax/GST ;kstuk en ds vo'ks"k jkf'k dk C;kSjk ugha gSA var%'ks"k dk lR;kiu ugha djus rFkk var%'ks"k dk enokj fooj.k ugha la/kkfjr djus ls çFke -"V~;k oS/kkfud nkf;Roksa ds yfEcr jgus dh iw.kZ lEHkkouk rFkk laosnd ds lqj{kk en dh jkf'k dk vf/kds; Hkqxrku vFkok ;kstuk en ds Hkqxrku dh iw.kZ lEHkkouk gSA vk;dj dk yfEcr ekax blh dkj.k mRiUu gqvk çfrr gksrk gSA

2 dk;Z çeaMy] vjsjkt varxZr dbZ laosnd }kjk mu iFkksa dk fuekZ.k@vuqj{k.k fd;k tk jgk gS] tks fofHkUu dk;ZØe esa U vFkok SRI çfrosfnr gS] çko/kkuksa ds vuq:i mä iFkksa esa rc rd fdlh çdkj dk Hkqxrku çeaMy }kjk ugha fd;k tkuk gS] tcrd fd fujh{k.k çfrosnuksa esa bafxr =qfV;ksa dk fujkdj.k ugha djk fy;k tkrk gSA ijUrq çeaMy }kjk fofHkUu ;kstukvksa esa ATR yxs jgus ds ckn Hkh Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 31- 03-2018 ds ihå,eåthå,låokbZå vuqj{k.k en ls lacaf/kr [kkrk ds fujh{k.k ls Li"V gS fd laosndksa dk Hkqxrku vuq{k.k en ds cSad [kkrs ls gksuk Fkk] ijUrq çeaMy }kjk psd ds ek/;e ls ihå,eåthå,låokbZå çksxzke QaM ds cSad [kkrs ls Hkqxrku fd;k x;kA çeaMy ds ys[kk iqfLrdkvksa ds fujh{k.k ls Li"V gS fd ;s psd PMGSY ;kstuk ds iSdst la[;k& BR-11R-353 ds iapo"khZ; :Vhu vuqj{k.k en esa laosnd dks Hkqxrku fd;k x;k gSA ijUrq laosnd dks Hkqxrku PMGSY çksxzke QaM en ds cSad [kkrsa ls dj fn;k x;k gSA ;g jkf'k ds Diversion dk ekeyk rFkk xEHkhj foÙkh; Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

vfu;ferÙkk gSA

3- eq[;ea=h xzke lM+d ;kstuk ¼fo'o cSad½ ds vkoaVu iath ds fujh{k.k ls Li"V gS fd vkoaVu iath ij fdlh inkf/kdkjh dk gLrk{kj ugha gSA fnukad&28-07-2017 rd bl ;kstuk esa dqy 2]94]33]388@jkf'k dk vkoaVu çe.My dks çkIr gqvk Fkk] ftlesa iSdst laå&MMGSY WB16-Areraj-02 dk;Z dk uke oS/kukFk egrks ls vo/ksl uxj] laosnd dk uke& eqUuk dqekj flag ds fy, 73]49]765@& dk vkoaVu çkIr gqvk FkkA ijUrq bl dk;Z esa laosnd dks ykHk igqapkus ds mís'; ls 28-07- 2017 rd dqy 1]06]68]531@& ds foi= dk Hkqxrku dj fn;k x;kA vf/kdkbZ dh jkf'k 33]18]766@& dk Hkqxrku vU; dk;Z gsrq fuxZruoaVu ls dj fn;k x;k gSA ;g fuf/k ds Diversion dk ekeyk gS rFkk xEHkhj foÙkh; vfu;ferÙkk n'kkZrk gSA

4 foHkkx }kjk lHkh dk;Z çe.Myksa dks funsZf'kr fd;k x;k gS fd Royality/Sales Tax/Other deduction en ds jkf'k dks çR;sd ekg ds vxys lIrkg esa dVkSrh fd jkf'k dks tek djk fn;k tk,A ijUrq dk;Z çeaMy&vjsjkt } kjk dbZ ;kstukvksa ds Royality en fd jkf'k dks fnukad& 31-03-2020 rd tek ugha djk;k tk jgk gS tks xEHkhj foÙkh; vfu;feÙkÙkk n'kkZrk gSA

5- dk;Z çeaMy] vjsjkt }kjk ç/kkuea=h xzke lM+d ;kstuk vUrxZr iSdst la[;k& BR-11R-452 ds dk;Z ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[kksa ds uewuk takp esa ik;k x;k gS fd dk;Z fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa iwjk ugha fd;k x;k rFkk laosnd dks Hkqxrku djrs le; foi= ls dqy :å 20]00]732@& dh L.D dh dVkSrh fd;k tkuk pkfg, Fkk] fdUrq çeaMy }kjk dqy :å 781]964@& jkf'k dk dVkSrh fd;k x;k gSA bl çdkj ekeys esa ljdkj dh dqy :å 12]18]768@& dh foÙkh; {kfr gqbZA

6 vk;dj dh /kkjk 201 ds rgr vksr ij dh xbZ vk;dj dh dVkSrh dks pkyku ds ek/;e ls vxys ekg ds 07 rkjh[k rd tek djkus dk çko/kku gS rFkk çR;sd frekgh dk fjVuZ vxys ekg ds 30 rkjh[k rd nkf[ky djuk vfuok;Z gSA vU;Fkk çfr fnu 200 : ds nj ls naM dk çko/kku gSA dk;Z çe.My ds TAN ij foxr vof/k esa Traces ds fujh{k.k ls Li"V gS fd Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

çe.My }kjk le; ij fjVuZ QkbZy djus vFkok Short Deduction/Short Payment ds dkj.k dk Hkh fMekUM çnf'kZr gks jgk gSA tks oS/kkfud nkf;Roksa ds No Compliance dk ekeyk gSA foHkkx ds i=kad 589 fnukad 12-02-2018 ds }kjk ,sls Non Compliance ds ekeys esa DDO ds lkFk&lkFk ys[kk 'kk[kk dk nkf;Ro fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA TDS Traces ij lafpÙk ekax dh jkf'k bl ckr dk lwpd gS fd çeaMyksa }kjk vHkh rd ekeys esa foHkkx }kjk fu/kkZfjr funs'kksa dk vuqikyu djrs gq, yafcr jkf'k dk lek;kstu ugha fd;k x;k gSA mä ls Li"V gS fd Jh vfuy dqekj] ys[kkiky] xzkeh.k dk;Z foHkkx] dk;Z izeaMy] vjsjkt }kjk dk;Z fuoZgu esa ykijokgh cjrh x;hA mudk ;g vkpj.k fcgkj ljdkjh lsod fu;ekoyh ds fu;e&3 ds lqlaxr dafMdkvksa dk Li"V mYya?ku gSA "

3. After enquiry, an enquiry report dated

03.03.2021 was submitted wherein charge no.2, regarding

diversion of payment from the funds of PMGSY was found to

be partially proved and remaining charges were not proved. The

petitioner filed his objection on 23.12.2020 requesting the

Enquiry Officer to supply the relevant records i.e. measurement

book, cash-book and liquidated damage reduction register as

well as the evidence based on which the enquiry report

22.11.2020 was prepared. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted

his defence statement on 18.01.2021.

4. It is also the case of the petitioner that his

suspension was revoked on 17.03.2021 by the disciplinary

authority, who agreeing with the enquiry report, wherein charge

no.2 regarding diversion of funds from PMGSY was partially Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

proved, issued a second show-cause to the petitioner on

09.04.2021. The petitioner submitted his defence to the second

show-cause notice on 15.04.2021 and categorically stated that

the payment to the contractors was made in accordance with the

Rules and also after due verification by the Junior Engineer,

Assistant Engineer and the Executive Engineer on the

measurement book. Therefore, the liability for payment of bills

to the contractors cannot be solely attributed to the petitioner. It

was also stated in the defence statement that the petitioner had

taken remedial steps for account settlement and as such, no

financial loss to the department has occurred and also in the

report of the Auditor no adverse remarks was made against the

petitioner. It was also stated that since the petitioner was over

burdened with work, as out of the four sanctioned posts, the

petitioner was the single person handling the account section

and it was an innocent clerical mistake for which the petitioner

cannot be inflicted with such a harsh punishment for the

remainder of his service.

5. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide

impugned order dated 08.06.2021 has rejected the response to

the second show-cause and inflicted the punishment of

demotion of the petitioner to the lowest pay scale at level -4 Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

(Rs.25,500/-) till his superannuation and no increment would be

admissible for the remainder of his service. Thereafter,

consequential order dated 11.06.2021 was passed, whereby the

petitioner was posted against the vacant post of Accounts Clerk.

Against the order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an

appeal, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated

23.08.2022.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has

submitted that the disciplinary authority while rejecting the

reply to the second show cause notice has not considered the

defence of the petitioner which have been detailed in his reply.

He has further submitted that the disciplinary authority

arbitrarily agreed with the enquiry report and imposed the

punishment upon the petitioner.

7. It has been submitted by learned counsel for

the petitioner that the petitioner had undertaken the bank

reconciliation process to settle the difference of amount from the

PMGSY programme fund and the PMGSY maintenance fund

and as such, there was no financial loss suffered by the

department but, this fact has not been considered by the

disciplinary authority while imposing punishment upon the

petitioner. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is a Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

diligent Government Servant and has merely committed a bona

fide clerical error for which a disproportionately harsh

punishment has been imposed upon him and the same has

mechanically been affirmed by the appellate authority without

examining the records of the proceeding. It is emphasized by

learned counsel for the petitioner that the quantum of

punishment is disproportionately harsh, inasmuch as, no time

limit has been prescribed for stoppage of increment and the

demotion to the lower pay scale. Therefore, it is submitted that

the present case is fit for warranting interference by this Court

on the ground that no prudent person would have awarded such

a disproportionately harsh punishment against an innocent

clerical error.

8. It has also been submitted that the petitioner

has not been given the chance by the disciplinary authority to

cross examine the witnesses.

9. The learned counsel for the State has

opposed this writ petition and has reiterated the facts of the

departmental proceeding and submitted that an explanation was

sought from the petitioner against charges levelled against him,

to which the petitioner had filed his explanation on 07.11.2020,

which was found unsatisfactory and thereafter the petitioner was Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

placed under suspension vide order dated 12.11.2020 and the

departmental proceeding was also initiated against him vide

office order dated 13.11.2020. It has also been submitted that

after enquiry, the report was submitted, in which charge no.2

which relates to the diversion of the funds from PMGSY

accounts was found to be partially proved. Upon review, the

suspension of the petitioner was revoked vide order dated

17.03.2021 and findings of the Enquiry Officer was agreed to by

the disciplinary authority and a second show-cause was issued

to the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the State has submitted

that the main allegation against the petitioner is of diversion of

funds from PMGSY programme fund instead of PMGSY

maintenance funds which amounts to gross negligence in

accounting work and reflects dereliction of duty. So far as the

assertion by the petitioner that the amount was settled at his

instance is concerned, the same is wholly wrong as the amount

was settled / rectified only on the direction of the Bihar Rural

Roads Development Agency (BRRDA). Therefore, considering

the aforesaid aspects of the matter, the petitioner was awarded

the punishment of reduction to a lower stage in time-scale of

pay level - 4 (Rs.25,500/-) till his superannuation and further no Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

salary increment during this time.

11. Considered the submissions advanced by the

parties and perused the materials on record.

12. In the present case, altogether six charges

were levelled against the petitioner, however, upon enquiry, save

and except charge no.2, all the remaining five charges were not

proved. Even charge no.2, which relates to diversion of funds,

was partially found to be proved against the petitioner. The

main thrust of allegation against the petitioner is of making

payments from PMGSY programme fund instead of PMGSY

maintenance fund. It is admitted position that the difference of

amount was settled through Bank reconciliation process.

13. In the present case, the main thrust of

argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the

quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner is too harsh

for an innocent clerical error.

14. In the case of Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v.

Rajendra D. Harmalkar reported as (2022) 17 SCC 361, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under -

"17. Therefore, the short question which is posed for consideration by this Court is, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court is justified in interfering with the conscious decision taken by the disciplinary Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

authority while imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

18. On the question of judicial review and interference of the courts in matters of disciplinary proceedings and on the test of proportionality, a few decisions of this Court are required to be referred to.

19. In Om Kumar [Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001) 2 SCC 386 : 2001 SCC (L&S) 1039], this Court, after considering the Wednesbury principles and the doctrine of proportionality, has observed and held that the question of the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority to order and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or other of the well-known principles known as "Wednesbury principles". In Wednesbury Case [Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v.

Wednesbury Corpn., (1948) 1 KB 223 (CA)], it was said that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited. Lord Greene further said that interference was not permissible unless one or the other of the following conditions was satisfied, namely, the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered, or the decision was one which no Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

reasonable person could have taken.

20. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India [B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80], in para 18, this Court observed and held as under : (SCC p.

762) "18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct.

The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

21. In Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Rajendra Singh [Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank v Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 : (2013) 3 SCC (L&S) 159], in para 19, it was observed and held as under : (SCC p. 382) "19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarised as follows:

19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.

19.2. The courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary / departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority.

19.3. Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court.

19.4. Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

the nature of charges framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case.

19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4 above, would be in those cases where the co-delinquent is awarded lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the co-

delinquent are equally placed.

However, there has to be a complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge- sheet in the two cases. If the co-

delinquent accepts the charges, indicating remorse with Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be justifiable."

xxxxxx

27. Even from the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it does not appear that any specific reasoning was given by the High Court on how the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority could be said to be shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct proved. As per the settled position of law, unless and until it is found that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is shockingly disproportionate and/or there is procedural irregularity in conducting the inquiry, the High Court would not be justified in interfering with the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which as such is a prerogative of the disciplinary authority as observed hereinabove."

15. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Ex. Constable Ram Karan

reported as (2022) 1 SCC 373, had referred to several

precedents and held as under -

"23. The well-ingrained principle of law is that it is the disciplinary authority, or the appellate authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of punishment to be given to the delinquent employee. Keeping in view the Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

seriousness of the misconduct committed by such an employee, it is not open for the courts to assume and usurp the function of the disciplinary authority.

24. Even in cases where the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to be shocking to the conscience of the court, normally the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority should be directed to reconsider the question of imposition of penalty. The scope of judicial review on the quantum of punishment is available but with a limited scope. It is only when the penalty imposed appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the nature of misconduct that the courts would frown upon. Even in such a case, after setting aside the penalty order, it is to be left to the disciplinary/appellate authority to take a call and it is not for the court to substitute its decision by prescribing the quantum of punishment. However, it is only in rare and exceptional cases where the court might to shorten the litigation may think of substituting its own view as to the quantum of punishment in place of punishment awarded by the competent authority that too after assigning cogent reasons.

xxxxxx

27. Adverting to the facts of the instant case, the High Court, in our considered view, fell in error in interfering with the punishment, which could lawfully be imposed by the departmental Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

authorities for his proven misconduct. The High Court should not have substituted its own discretion for that of the authority. What punishment was required to be imposed, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was a matter which fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and the interference made by the High Court is in a cavalier manner while recording the finding of penalty to be disproportionate without taking into consideration the seriousness of the misconduct committed by the respondent which is unpardonable and not sustainable in law. (emphasis supplied).

16. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the

case of Birendra Kumar Mahto vs State of Bihar and Ors

C.W.J.C. No. 11951 of 2017, had applied the principles of

proportionality in awarding punishment to a Government

Servant, and held as under:-

"In nutshell, the Wednesbury's principle has to be applied to examine the correctness of the decision making process, unless the aforesaid errors have crept into in the decision making process, the Court should not interfere with the decision and substitute that decision by its own decision.

In the matter of inflicting punishment, unless the punishments are shockingly disproportionate in such manner that no reasonable and normal person will impose such Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

a penalty which is defiance to the logic and moral standard, the Court would not interfere in the matter as has been decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. K.G. Soni reported in (2006) 6 SCC 794, paragraph nos. 14 & 15 whereof, being relevant, are quoted herein below:- "14. The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in the Wednesbury's case (supra) the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.

15. To put differently, unless the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed."

xxxxx The authority while exercising the power of judicial review in passing the order of punishment, it was required to see that hammers has not been used for cracking the nut. The power should be exercised in such a manner that it should appear that the authority has really applied its balancing approach in awarding the punishment and it should not be defiance of logic." (Emphasis Supplied)

17. On going through the aforesaid decisions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court, it is clear that the

Courts have limited scope while examining the question of

quantum of punishment. It is the disciplinary authority or the

appellate authority, which decides the nature of punishment

keeping in mind the seriousness of the misconduct committed.

However, this would not imply or mean to prevent a

Constitutional Court from interfering with a punishment which

is so disproportionately harsh that it shocks the conscience of

the Court.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

18. From the perusal of the impugned order of

punishment and the appellate order, it appears that the

punishment inflicted upon the petitioner is not circumscribed by

a time limit and rather the punishment has been inflicted upon

him for the entire remainder of his service till superannuation.

19. The punishment inflicted upon the

delinquent must be reasonable and proportionate to the gravity

of the misconduct. A disproportionate punishment penalty

would fail upon the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Further, the disciplinary/ appellate authority must consider

relevant and attending circumstances before coming to a

conclusion.

20. Now, turning to the facts of the present case,

as already noted above, altogether six charges were levelled

against the petitioner and after enquiry only charge no.2 relating

to diversion of funds, has partially been proved. The sum and

substance of allegation is that the amount has been disbursed

from a wrong account by the petitioner, which too, was settled

in the bank reconciliation process. This Court has noted that the

punishment imposed upon the petitioner i.e. demoting to a

lowest stage in time-scale of pay at level-4 (Rs.25,500/-) till his

superannuation and no salary increment would be paid to him Patna High Court CWJC No.2237 of 2023 dt.12-12-2025

during this time is shocking to the conscience of this Court. The

impugned order of punishment is bad firstly, the quantum is not

commensurate to the gravity of the charge against the petitioner,

secondly, from the perusal of the impugned orders, it appears

that the respondent authorities have not given any cogent

reasons for imposing such a harsh punishment upon the

petitioner considering the nature of charge and the attending

circumstances.

21. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the

impugned order of punishment dated 08.06.2021 and the

appellate order dated 23.08.2022 are quashed. The matter is

remitted back to the respondent authorities for taking fresh

decision in accordance with law.

22. With the aforesaid observation and direction,

the present writ petition stands allowed.

(Sandeep Kumar, J)

Vikas/-

Pawan
AFR/NAFR                N.A.F.R.
CAV DATE                13.10.2025
Uploading Date          12.12.2025
Transmission Date