Judgment 1. The petitioner is a retired employee of the Bihar State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). He retired from service on 31.1.2001 and at the time of retirement he was posted as Head Clerk in the Electric Supply Circle, Gaya. At the time of retirement the petitioner was facing a disciplinary proceeding on certain charges. In that proceeding the petitioner was given the punishment of reduction of pension to 0 (Zero) by office order no. 4515 issued by the Additional Secretary in the Board under his memo no. 1916 dated 12.9.2001 (Annexure-1). This writ petition has been filed challenging the order of punishment. 2. Before proceeding further it may be stated that after his retirement the petitioner has been paid his Provident Fund and the amount of his leave encashment in terms of the punishment order his pension stands at Zero and he is also denied gratuity on the ground that it formed part of pensionary benefits. In other words, as a result of the punishment, the petitioner has been totally denied any gratuity and pension. 3. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the basis of a charge sheet dated 23.5.1996 (Annexure-11) setting forth two charges against him. The first charge was that as Head Clerk he failed to bring to the notice of the superior authorities that in the service book of one Yadunandan Singh who at that time was the Office Superintendent there were two dates recorded in the column for date of birth. Due to the petitioners failure to bring this fact to the notice of the superior authorities, Yadunandan Singh continued in service beyond his due date of superannuation and was able to receive salary for the extended period, causing loss to the Board. The second charge against the petitioner was that when this fact came to light he tried to cover up his lapses/omission by making interpolation in official record, that is to say, in a note put up by him before the Electrical Executive Engineer/Electrical Superintending Engineer on the subject of granting annual increment to Yadunandan Singh. The petitioner gave his reply to the charges on which a departmental enquiry was directed to be held. In the enquiry report it was found and held that both the charges were established against the petitioner. The petitioner gave his reply to the charges on which a departmental enquiry was directed to be held. In the enquiry report it was found and held that both the charges were established against the petitioner. He was then given a second show cause notice and after considering his reply the impugned order of punishment was issued against him. 4. Seen in isolation there may not appear any illegality or infirmity in subjecting the petitioner to the disciplinary proceeding and in giving him the punishment as indicated above. But viewed in the totality of the attending facts and circumstances it appears to the court that the punishment awarded to the petitioner was far too excessive, disproportionate and discriminatory and it is therefore liable to be interfered with. For putting the matter in its proper perspective it would be necessary to state some brief facts. 5. The petitioner was posted in the Electric Supply Division No. 2, Gaya. On 7.7.1990 he was given promotion to the post of Head Clerk and was posted in the Electric Supply Circle, Gaya West. He joined there on 31.8.1990. Yadunandan Singh was then posted in that circle as Office Superintendent and he was also incharge of the establishment work. It is not in dispute that in the service book of Yadunandan Singh two dates were shown as his date of birth, one was 15.11.1930 recorded on the basis of the matriculation certificate and the other, obviously a later interpolation, was 15.11.1932 (on the basis of an affidavit sworn by his father before the Magistrate 1st Class, Gaya). Taking 15.11.1930 as his date of birth, Yadunandan Singh was due to retire on 30.11.1990, that is to say, within three months of the petitioners joining that office as Head Clerk. The charge against the petitioner is that he failed to bring it to the notice of the superior authorities that there were two dates entered in the service book of Yadunandan Singh and on the basis of one of them, which in all probability was the original entry, he would retire on 30.11.1990. The petitioners omission was believed to be deliberate and intended to benefit Yadunandan Singh. And benefit Yadunandan Singh it did. He was able to continue in service till November, 1992 on the basis of his interpolated date of birth. The petitioners omission was believed to be deliberate and intended to benefit Yadunandan Singh. And benefit Yadunandan Singh it did. He was able to continue in service till November, 1992 on the basis of his interpolated date of birth. When this fact came to light the petitioner tried to cover up his lapses by inserting one sentence in a note, dated 31.8.1990 earlier submitted by him before the Electrical Executive Engineer for granting annual increments to Yadunandan Singh. In paragraph 1 of this note a sentence was added stating that in the service book of Yadunandan Singh there were two dates mentioned as his date of birth which might also be seen by the authority. The petitioner had annexed a typed copy of this note which does not present the true picture. A photo copy of the note has come on the record as Annexure-2/A to the rejoinder, filed by the petitioner in the reply to the Boards counter affidavit. From the spacing of lines in the note it appears that the sentence was definitely added after the note was prepared. Whether or not the insertion of the sentence was bonafide and whether the addition was made before the note was put up before the superior authority or whether the interpolation was made much later with the object to cover the petitioners lapse is another matter. But the Board has proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was guilty of the charges and in doing so the Board cannot be said to be unjustified because the charges were duly established in the departmental enquiry. 6. That, however, is not the end of the matter. From the facts stated above it would be evident that the petitioner was not alone in this episode; he was not even the main actor in this episode. The main actor and the sole beneficiary in this affair was clearly Yadunandan Singh. Then there would be the dealing staff who made the entry of the second date of birth in the service book of Yadunandan Singh and the officer who put his signature and endorsed the second unauthorised entry in the service book. Further, the petitioner had joined that office as Head Clerk three months before the due date of retirement of Yadunandan Singh. Hence, what about his predecessor? Further, the petitioner had joined that office as Head Clerk three months before the due date of retirement of Yadunandan Singh. Hence, what about his predecessor? A question, therefore, arises as to how did the Board deal with all those persons whose culpability in the matter was not less than the petitioner by any means. 7. Now it may be seen that Yadunandan Singh himself was lef off with a very slight reduction in his pension and the deduction of Rs. 25,000/- from his gratuity for adjustment of the excess salary paid to him. Yadunandan Singh challenged the reduction made by the Board in his pension and gratuity in C.W.J.C. No. 5943 of 1996. That writ petition was allowed by judgment and order, dated 11.12.1997. This Court set aside the Boards decision to pay him the reduced pension and gratuity on the ground that the order was issued without giving an opportunity of hearing to him but left it open to the Board to proceed afresh against Yadunandan Singh and to pass appropriate orders after giving him an opportunity of hearing. The relevant portion of the order is as follows : "The said assertion of the petitioner has not been controverted by the learned counsel for the Board and in view of the admitted facts that before joining the service. the petitioners father filed an affidavit giving the date of birth of the petitioner as 15.11.32 and the same has also been mentioned in the Service Book the authorities cannot change the same to the detriment of the petitioner in breach of the principle of natural justice. If the authorities had any doubt about the date of birth of the petitioner, then in that case the proper course would have been to hear the petitioner and then to determine the date of his birth, specially when in the first service book, both the date of birth have been mentioned and in the subsequent service book, 15.11.1932 as the date of his birth has been mentioned. Denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders to his detriment is not sustainable in the eye of law and on this ground alone, the directions, as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 treating his date of birth as 15.11.1930 as well as reducing the pension and gratuity are set aside. Denial of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before passing the impugned orders to his detriment is not sustainable in the eye of law and on this ground alone, the directions, as contained in Annexures 1 and 2 treating his date of birth as 15.11.1930 as well as reducing the pension and gratuity are set aside. However, it will be open for the Board to take a fresh decision after complying with the requirements of principle of natural justice. It goes without saying that if the date of birth as 15.11.1932 is found to be correct one, then for the purpose of post-retiral benefits his date of superannuation will be treated as 30.11.1992. However, if the Boards assertion is accepted, then the date of retirement for the aforesaid purpose will be determined as 30.11.1990." 8. To a query by the court Mr. Dutta stated that though a fresh proceeding was initiated against Yadunandan Singh, it remained inconclusive because of lack of cooperation from his side. I am unable to understand even this stand of the Board. If an employee did not cooperate in a disciplinary proceeding the Board was certainly not helpless in concluding the proceeding against him notwithstanding his lack of cooperation. Mr. Dutta was not in a position to say whether or not the full amount of gratuity and pension was paid to Yadunandan Singh after the order passed by this Court in his writ petition but the fact remains that even in its first order (which was set aside by this Court) the Board had let off Yadunandan Singh with a relatively very minor punishment. 9. Likewise, no action was taken against Shri Nandu Chaudhary who was the Head Clerk before the petitioner joined the post. It is noted above, that Yadunandan Singh was due to retire within three months from the date of joining of the petitioner. Under the relevant pension rules the process of determining the terminal benefits are required to commence at least eight months before the due date of retirement. The liability of the petitioners predecessor therefore cannot be disputed. Even then the Board did not take any steps at all against the petitioners predecessor. 10. Under the relevant pension rules the process of determining the terminal benefits are required to commence at least eight months before the due date of retirement. The liability of the petitioners predecessor therefore cannot be disputed. Even then the Board did not take any steps at all against the petitioners predecessor. 10. This much with regard to the clerical staff No steps were taken even to identify the officer who permitted the entry of the second date of birth in the service book of Yadunandan Singh and who put his signature endorsing the second unauthorised/interpolated entry in the service book. 11. The Board is reportedly plagued with a large number of such cases where employee continues in service beyond the due date of retirement on the basis of false dates of birth recorded/interpolated in the service book by fraudulent means. The Boards anxiety to take remedial measures against the malady is understandable but this problem cannot be resolved by such knee-jerk reactions. In awarding punishment the Board must maintain due proportion. It would be quite unreasonable to pick one from among several culprits and to punish him alone to set up an example. 12. Mr. R.K. Dutta strenuously argued that the charge against the petitioner was not only that he failed to bring to the notice of the superior authorities that there were two dates entered in the service book of Yadunandan Singh as his date of birth but the main and more grievous charge against him was that he made interpolation in official record and therefore the punishment of reduction of pension to Zero passed against the petitioner was quite reasonable and justified. 13. I am unable to accept the submission for more reasons than one. In the facts of this case it is not possible to take the charges separately and the two charges appear to be interconnected with each other and even assuming the charge of interpolation was a separate and independent charge, the same charge would apply more strongly against Yadunandan Singh. From the facts as stated above, it is evident that interpolation was made, at his instance, in his service book when another date was entered in the column of date of birth. Thus the charge of interpolation is applicable against Yadunandan Singh even more strongly than the petitioner. But as seen above he was let off only with a punishment of deduction of Rs. Thus the charge of interpolation is applicable against Yadunandan Singh even more strongly than the petitioner. But as seen above he was let off only with a punishment of deduction of Rs. 25,000/- from his gratuity. 14. In these facts and circumstances I am unable to sustain the punishment awarded to the petitioner. The impugned punishment is therefore set aside. It is, however, made clear that this Court is not interfering with the findings of guilt recorded against the petitioner in the enquiry report and it will still be open to the Board to pass an appropriate and reasonable order of punishment against the petitioner on the basis of the enquiry report. In the facts of this case it would be for the Board to decide upon what may be a reasonable and just punishment but the Board may be benefited by taking into consideration the following facts and circumstances. 15. In a written note of arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner it is stated that the excess salary paid to Yadunandan Singh from 30.11.1990 to 30.11.1992 come to approximately Rs. 1,12,000/-. It is further stated that the petitioners pension would be fixed approximately at Rs. 5,000/- per month and if commutation is allowed for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- the petitioner would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as commuted value of pension. The Board may consider deducting from the petitioners gratuity or pension an appropriate percentage of the excess salary that might have been paid to Yadunandan Singh. In doing so the Board must also take into consideration the punishment, if any, proposed against Yadunandan Singh. The punishment to the petitioner cannot be higher than Yadunandan Singh. 16. In the result, the impugned order dated 12.9.2001 is quashed. This writ petition is allowed but with the liberty to the Board to proceed against the petitioner from the stage of the second show cause notice, in the light of the observations and directions given in this judgment.