JUDGEMENT Sheema Ali Khan, J. 1. The Petitioner was working as a Superintending Engineer in the Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar. He retired from service on 31.1.1997. 2. Three officers, namely, Balmiki Singh, Chief Engineer, Shyam Narayan Singh, the present Petitioner and Ram Asrey were facing departmental proceeding allegedly for appointing 883 persons without proper sanction and without following the due procedure laid down by law. 3. Balmiki Singh died during the proceeding whereas the proceeding under Rule 48 (b) of the Bihar Pension Rules was dropped against Ram Asrey by virtue of order of this Court passed on 8.10.2004 in CWJC No. 5457/1999, a copy of which is at Annexure F to the counter affidavit. 4. The allegations as far as this Petitioner is concerned, it that he was responsible for appointment of some 70 to 80 persons. It is said that they were not appointed against sanctioned posts and that the appointment was illegal and irregular. It is said that the appointments were made by a notice which was notified in the office of the Petitioner. The said appointments were made for a period of three months and it is alleged that the Petitioner allowed the appointees to continue on the said posts. 5. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, an enquiry was conducted vide Annexure 1. The enquiry officer considering the allegations has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner had made the appointment for a period of three months on account of the fact that certain projects had to be completed within a time limit and it became essential to appoint persons in order the achieve the target. This aspect is not doubted and the authorities have not been able to really justify that such appointments ought to not have been. These appointments were for the limited period i.e. till such time the project was completed. The infringement of procedure of appointments took place thereafter. The said appointments although were for three months, continued by virtue of the fact that there were certain letters of the higher authorities directing the Petitioner to allow those persons to continue. It has also been noted in the enquiry report that the Petitioner is only partly responsible for the said appointment and that he is also partly responsible for the loss caused to the Government as a result of payment of salary to the irregular appointees. It has also been noted in the enquiry report that the Petitioner is only partly responsible for the said appointment and that he is also partly responsible for the loss caused to the Government as a result of payment of salary to the irregular appointees. The enquiry officer found the Petitioner guilty did not recommend any punishment rather he left it open to the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority issued the second show cause notice to the Petitioner on 5.6.2006 asking as to why 50% of his pension should not be withheld. The Petitioner replied to the show-cause and thereafter, the order of punishment contained in Annexure 3 was issued. While issuing the order of punishment the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the Petitioner has made illegal appointments and allowed the appointees to continue for a period beyond three months. 6. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that he alone is not responsible for the said appointment nor is he responsible for the major chunk of the loss caused to the State Government due to such payment of salary to such appointees. It is further submitted that others who were responsible, and had appointed a large number of persons have been let of for one reason or the other and, thus, the punishment imposed on the Petitioner for making such appointment does not commensurate with the allegations levelled against him. It has been argued that in view of the fact that the Petitioner was under pressure by the superior authority (since deceased) to allow such persons to continue in service, the disciplinary authority ought to have taken this into account before issuing the order of punishment. 7. The Supreme Court has held in the case of Union of India v. V.C. Chaturvedi (1995) 6 SCC 750 that the nature and scope of judicial review should be in such, that the Court is satisfied where the punishment is not excessive. If the Court finds that it is excessive, viz a viz the allegations levelled then the Court has the power to intervene in the matter. In the present case as indicated above, the irregular appointments were made for a limited period which in themselves have not been held to be banned. The continuance of such appointees have been depreciated and the Petitioner along with others were booked for this offence. In the present case as indicated above, the irregular appointments were made for a limited period which in themselves have not been held to be banned. The continuance of such appointees have been depreciated and the Petitioner along with others were booked for this offence. The inquiry report indicates that the continuance of such persons was not at the behest of the Petitioner and as such it cannot be held that he was responsible for continuance of those temporary appointees. I, therefore, find that the punishment is in excess to the offence alleged. I, thus, quash the order imposing punishment and direct that the Deputy Secretary-cum-Chief Vigilance Officer, Road Construction Department and take this fact into account and reduce the punishment of the Petitioner within a period of three months on receipt of a copy of this order. This Court would suggest that the punishment awarded should not be more than deduction of 20% of the pension amount. 8. This application is thus, disposed of with the aforesaid observations and direction.