JUDGEMENT Shiva Kirti Singh and Hemant Kumar Srivastava JJ. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the appellant who is Joint Secretary to the Government of Bihar in Water Resources Department. Nobody appears on behalf of private respondent No. 1 or on behalf of respondent No. 3, the Chief Engineer, Central Design, Water Resources Department. Learned Counsel for the State is representing respondent No. 2, the State of Bihar. 2. The relevant facts are not in dispute. Respondent No. 1 was posted as Assistant Engineer in the Gandak Development Division at Motihari at the relevant time. Taking recourse to summary procedure of enquiry provided under Rule 55A of the Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules"), he was inflicted with two punishments, one was withholding of promotion for ten years and the other was possibility of an order for recovery of alleged loss in case it could not be recovered from the contractor. Such order was passed on 13.01.1993 and thereafter the respondent No. 1 superannuated on 13.12.1996. By order dated 11.12.1999 (Annexure-7 in the writ proceeding) an order was passed to recover one fourth of the amount of loss from the salary and pensionary benefits of the respondent No. 1. According to learned Counsel for the appellant the amount to be recovered from respondent No. 1 was Rs. 29,000/- and odd. 3. By the order under appeal the learned single Judge found that withholding of promotion for 10 years amounted to a major punishment and hence it could not have been imposed in a summary disciplinary proceeding under Rule 55A of the Rules which is meant only for imposition of minor penalty and may include withholding of promotion. The writ Court further found that the impugned order contained in Annexure-7 showed no application of mind and there was no justification for ordering recovery from a retired employee like the respondent No. 1 without disclosing as to how it had been found that it was not possible to recover the loss from the contractor. 4. According to learned Counsel for the appellants the writ petition should have been rejected because order of punishment was passed six years earlier in 1993 and that had been accepted by writ petitioner for a number of years. 4. According to learned Counsel for the appellants the writ petition should have been rejected because order of punishment was passed six years earlier in 1993 and that had been accepted by writ petitioner for a number of years. There may be substance in the aforesaid submission so far as the punishment for withholding promotion for 10 years is concerned but so far as the other penalty is concerned, it had not taken any concrete shape under the earlier order and the punishment became effective only on passing of impugned order contained in Annexure-7 issued in the year 1999. A retired employee like respondent No. 1 was in substance concerned only with the punishment specifying recovery of Rs. 29,000/and odd. Such punishment was imposed without any application of mind as per finding given by the learned writ Court. We find no good reason to take a different view. 5. There is no good explanation as to why it was impossible to recover the alleged loss from the contractor. In that view of the matter, we find no good reason to interfere with the order under appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No cost. 6. Before parting with the judgment we are constrained to express our surprise that this appeal has been preferred by an individual officer who cannot be said to be adversely affected and the State of Bihar is merely a respondent. Nothing more need be said in this regard.