JUDGMENT Deoki Nandan, J. - These two second appeals arise from a common judgment dated 9th October, 1971 of the court of the Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur. 2. Durga Dutt Pandey, the plaintiff, claimed a declaration that the deduction of Rs. 3,187-50 p. and Rs. 1,910-67 p. from the special contribution to his provident fund was illegal, unconstitutional and was not binding on him. The plaintiff also claimed a decree for recovery of Rs. 5,098-17 p. 3. The trial court decreed the suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,902-67 p. only. Both the parties appealed therefrom to the District Court and, by the judgment under appeal, the court of the Additional District Judge dismissed both their appeals. While the Union of India, representing the North Eastern Railway Administration, has appealed from the decree for recovery of Rs. 1,902-50 p., the plaintiff has appealed from the dismissal of the suit in respect of the amount of Rs. 3,187-50 p. 4. The relevant facts are : On the retirement of the plaintiff an order appears to have been passed by the General Manager of the North Eastern Railway Administration withholding fifty per cent of the special contribution to the plaintiffs provident fund, which he was empowered to order under Para. 1341, Indian Railway Establishment Code, Volume I. This order appears to have been communicated on 17th March, 1966. It further appears from Ext. I, which is a registered letter addressed by the Deputy Mechanical., Engineer, North Eastern Railway, Izatnagar, to the plaintiff, that fifty per cent of the special contribution to the plaintiffs provident fund which had been so withheld, amounted to Rs. 3187-50 p. The letter Ext. I, further shows that the amount of the special contribution to the plaintiffs provident fund released by the railway administration under the said Para 1341, was Rs. 3187-50 p. However, from this amount of Rs. 3187-50 p., three items amounting in all to Rs. 1910-67 p., were ordered to be deducted. The order for deduction of these three items was not passed by or with the approval of the General Manager but appears to have been passed by the competent authority in exercise of its power under Para 1341 of the said Railway Establishment Code. 5. Mr. 1910-67 p., were ordered to be deducted. The order for deduction of these three items was not passed by or with the approval of the General Manager but appears to have been passed by the competent authority in exercise of its power under Para 1341 of the said Railway Establishment Code. 5. Mr. Lalji Sinha, learned standing counsel for the railway administration very fairly invited my attention, at the very outset, to the decision of the Supreme Court in General Manager, North East' Frontier Rly v. Dinabandhu Chakraborty: 1970 Serv. L.R. 382. Referring to the said Para 1341 of the Railway Establishment Code, the Supreme Court observed as follows : "Under that rule the Controlling Officer is empowered to deduct any amount due under a liability incurred by the subscriber to the Government. Therefore before any deduction can be made, it must be established that under a liability incurred by the subscriber the amount in question is due to the Government. In the instant case, the respondent has disputed his liability. His contention is that he was not responsible for the loss in question. Under the Provident Fund Rules, no authority is constituted for deciding any dispute that might arise between the subscriber and the Government as regards any alleged incurring of the liability nor as regards its quantum. Therefore, the only forum in which these disputes can be decided is the Civil Court. The Government cannot be a judge in its own cause in the absence of any statutory provision empowering it to act as such. Hence the High Court was right in its conclusion that the action taken by the Government is an arbitrary one." 6. In face of this declaration of law by the Supreme Court, Mr. Lalji Sinha could not say anything much in support of the appeal by the Railway Administration. I have satisfied myself by examining the record that the order of deduction had not been passed by the authority concerned with the approval of the General Manager in exercise of the powers ,of deduction of the special contribution under Para 1341, but was an order of deduction passed by the Controlling Authority in exercise of its powers under Para 1341, Railway Establishment Code. 7. In the plaintiff's appeal, Mr. 7. In the plaintiff's appeal, Mr. V.B. Khare, who appeared for him, urged that the plaintiff had already been penalised for the charge of being responsible for an alleged wrong payment of Rs. 3523-13/- to Smt. Munakka Devi as special contribution to the provident fund of driver Ram Bali; and that, therefore, he could not be punished again for the same offence by being deprived of any part of the special contribution to his provident fund. 8. Having heard the learned counsel. I find that there is no force in this contention. The relevant words of Para 1341 in so far as they are applicable in the present case, are that : "1341 Special contribution to Provident Fund :- ..........(2) if a subscriber*not being a gazetted railway servant, quits service on - (a) completion of thirty years' service and the controlling officer is satisfied that the service of the subscriber has been good, efficient and faithful, the controlling officer may order that in addition to the contribution credited under rules 1312 and 1313 the subscriber's provident fund account shall be credited with a special contribution calculated in the manner prescribed below : - (4) The amount of special contribution calculated in accordance with sub-rule (3) may in any particular case be withheld or reduced by the controlling officer : Provided that where the controlling officer is lower in rank than the authority competent to dismiss the subscriber concerned, the contribution shall not be withheld or reduced save with the previous sanction of that authority." 9. In the present case, the power of the authority who ordered the deduction of the special contribution with the sanction of the General Manager, has not been challenged. What has been challenged is that the plaintiff could not be punished for the same fault twice. It is true that for the aforesaid charge of wrong payment to Smt. Munnakka Devi, the plaintiff appears to have been punished with the stoppage of increment, but the deduction of special contribution is not a punishment for the very power of granting , special contribution for good, efficient and faithful service at certain rates, is qualified by the power to withhold it altogether or to reduce it in suitable cases. The only possible question, which could arise, was whether the deduction of the special contribution in this case was arbitrary, but that is not the contention of the learned counsel. The controlling authority considered the quality of the service of the plaintiff not to be so wholly good, efficient or faithful as to entitle him to the full special contribution at the prescribed rates. The reason given by the controlling authority is that the deduction was made in consideration of the record of punishment and quality of service rendered by the plaintiff. It cannot be said that in deciding whether the service rendered by the plaintiff was good, efficient and faithful, his record of service and the punishment meted out to him, could not be considered. The quality of his service had to be judged on the basis of his service record. It cannot, therefore, be said that the deduction of the special contribution payable to the plaintiff, by fifty per cent, was in any manner arbitrary or illegal. 10. In the result both the appeals fail and are dismissed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.