Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 831 (PAT)

Pramod Kumar Bihari v. State Of Bihar

2005-09-15

J.N.BHATT, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the delay condonation application. 2. As there are only three days of delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal against the impugned order of the learned Single Judge and the learned Counsel for the respondents has also, rightly, not objected, the delay, as prayed for, shall stand condoned. 3. Accordingly, the Interlocutory Application (I.A. No. 4666/05) is allowed with no order as to cost. 4. With the consent of the parties, the Letters Patent Appeal has, also, been heard and is being disposed of on merits at the stage of orders itself. 5. In this Letters Patent Appeal the challenge is against the imposition of the penalty in a departmental proceeding of the charges held against the appellant by the respondent-authority concerned, wherein the charges have been found to be proved and as a result thereof the departmental punishment was imposed. The impugned order of the respondent-authority concerned was questioned with aids of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by filing a writ petition being CWJC No. 10774 of 1999, which came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge holding against the present appellant. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have also dispassionately examined the reasons and reasons of conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge. In the light of the factual profile as well as the entire record of this Letters Patent Appeal, we have no hesitation in coming to the finding that the views formed, upon appreciation of the facts by the learned Single Judge and ultimate conclusion reached by him, cannot be said to be vulnerable one requiring interference in exercise of power under Clause X of the Letters Patent Appeal. We, therefore, find no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal. 7. Needless to mention that the quantum of sentence in the departmental inquiry ordinarily cannot be re-appreciated and examined or interfered with by the writ court unless the proportionality of the penalty is shown to be very very high or very very low in terms of the delinquency established. We, therefore, find no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal. 7. Needless to mention that the quantum of sentence in the departmental inquiry ordinarily cannot be re-appreciated and examined or interfered with by the writ court unless the proportionality of the penalty is shown to be very very high or very very low in terms of the delinquency established. It will be interesting to note here that the sentence, after having proved the delinquency against the present appellant, is only, to the effect, that he has been censured and his three annual increments came to be withherd with cumulative effect, which, even, from the proportionality point of view, in the light of the facts, cannot be said to be unreasonable requiring interference by this Court. 8. Accordingly, this Letters Patent Appeal shall stand dismissed at the threshold. No cost.