← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/7060/2014disposed

Binod Prasad Karan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-08-23Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7060 of 2014 =========================================================== Binod Prasad Karan Son of Late Rajendra Prasad Karan Resident of Mohalla - Shastri Nagar, P.S. - Rampur, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Member, Board of Revenue

3. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya.

4. The District Magistrate, Gaya

5. The Magistrate In-Charge, District - Revenue Section - Gaya .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Advocate For the State : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, AAG 14 & Mr. Jitendra Kumar, AC to AAG 14.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 23-08-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that along with him three other persons, namely, Faiyaz Ahmad, Babu Lal Ram and Rabindra Kumar had been proceeded against in respect of allegations arising out of issuance of wrong certified copies of Laggit of the raiyat of Compensation case arising out of the same transaction.

3. She has submitted that in respect of said three persons the Appellate Authority has reduced the punishment of dismissal to that of compulsory retirement. She has alleged discrimination in the matter by awarding him punishment of dismissal, though the said three persons whose punishment has been reduced by the Appellate

Patna High Court CWJC No.7060 of 2014 dt.23-08-2018 2/3 Authority were also proceeded against in respect of the allegation arising out of the same transaction. Learned counsel has submitted that the response of the different officials have to be looked into and that would be determining factor in the matter of punishment. The petitioner submits that the mitigating factors have not been considered and therefore the petitioner has been inflicted severe punishment of dismissal which has been sustained by the Appellate Authority, though in the case of other three persons the same has been reduced to that of compulsory retirement. She points out the mitigating facts that the certified copies which the petitioner had issued were in fact the same what had been issued much prior to the petitioner by earlier Authority in the year 1975 to 1978.

Other than that she has placed before the Appellate Authority fact that records have been produced in the judicial proceeding and it is not a case that there is no record. These mitigating facts have not been considered by the Appellate Authority and as such severe punishment of dismissal has been sustained by the Appellate Authority, even though in case of three others, the same has been reduced to compulsory retirement.

4. This Court is conscious of its limitation in interfering with quantum of punishment. The mitigating facts however have to be considered by the authorities. This Court is of the view that the interest of justice would be served if the petitioner makes a

Patna High Court CWJC No.7060 of 2014 dt.23-08-2018 3/3 representation so as to persuade the Appellate Authority to reconsider the punishment of dismissal awarded to him by the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to the facts noticed above in respect of three persons, wherein the punishment awarded to them has been reduced to compulsory retirement. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the consideration may be with reference to the mitigating facts which have been submitted and taken note of.

5. In view of the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise the mitigating facts along with copies of the order filed by the petitioner in the instant proceedings of said three persons, within a period of four weeks from today. In case, such application is filed, the Appellate Authority may consider the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months thereafter. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashi.

AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date28.8.2018 Transmission Date NA