Order Re. Interlocutory Application No. 7835 of 2012. This application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed by the appellant State of Bihar for condonation delay of 357 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the delay is condoned on condition that the appellant State of Bihar pays a cost of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) to the respondent writ petitioner. The amount of cost will be paid to the respondent- writ petitioner within six weeks from today. 3. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1855 of 2012 and Interlocutory Application No. 7836 of 2012. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 23rd August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 17869 of 2009, the respondent State of Bihar has preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 5. At the relevant time, the respondent-writ petitioner was the Deputy Collector Land Reforms, Rohtas at Sasaram. On reaching the age of superannuation, he was due to retire on 31st December 2004. Intimation to that effect was sent to the writ petitioner on 29th July 2004. Nevertheless, on 13th January 2005 the writ petitioner informed the District Magistrate, Rohtas that he had applied to the State Government for voluntary retirement and that his application was accepted and that he was due to retire on 31st January 2005. 6. It is relevant to note that at the time the petitioner was appointed to be the Returning Officer for local election, under the said letter, the petitioner continued to serve until 31st January 2005 and also performed the election duty. For the said incidence, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on 4th April 2007. The charge sheet was duly answered by the petitioner. According to the writ petitioner, writing the letter dated 13th January 2005 was bona fide mistake committed by the writ petitioner. After holding due enquiry, under order dated 3rd August 2009 made by the State of Bihar, the petitioner has been visited with punishment of 10% deduction in pension. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 17869 of 2009. After holding due enquiry, under order dated 3rd August 2009 made by the State of Bihar, the petitioner has been visited with punishment of 10% deduction in pension. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above CWJC No. 17869 of 2009. The learned single Judge upheld the finding of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority, but held that the mala fide intention of the writ petitioner was not proved. 8. The learned single Judge was further pleased to hold that in absence of any loss suffered by the State Government it was not a case to invoke jurisdiction conferred by Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950. In view of the above finding, the learned single Judge has reduced the punishment to withholding of 10% of the pension for one month. Therefore, this Appeal. 9. We have heard the learned advocates extensively. 10. The facts that on reaching the age of superannuation, the writ petitioner was due for retirement on 31st December 2004 and that he had been given such intimation on 29th July 2004 are not in dispute; nor did the writ petitioner deny that he did write the letter dated 13th January 2005, as mentioned in the charge sheet. The letter of 13th January 2005 is not brought on the record. 11. The only question would be whether the petitioner wrote the letter dated 13th January 2005 for an oblique purpose or with ulterior intention. Mere denial by the writ petitioner would not be sufficient. The fact that the writ petitioner wrote that letter claiming that he was to retire on 31st January 2005 contrary to the records in itself proves mala fide intention. It is apparent that the writ petitioner wanted to continue to serve until 31st January 2005 so that he could continue to be the Returning Officer in the local election. The ulterior intention and the oblique motive are writ large in the conduct of the writ petitioner. The intention is the matter of inference to be assessed from the conduct of the delinquent. There cannot be a tangible evidence of the intention. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has erred in holding that there was no evidence of ulterior intention. It would hardly be relevant whether any monetary loss was caused to the State or whether the petitioner had received any monetary gain. There cannot be a tangible evidence of the intention. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has erred in holding that there was no evidence of ulterior intention. It would hardly be relevant whether any monetary loss was caused to the State or whether the petitioner had received any monetary gain. Once the guilt is proved and the learned single Judge confirms such finding, the question of interference with the punishment, unless the punishment is grossly inappropriate or disproportionate, does not arise. In our opinion, the learned single Judge having upheld the finding of guilt has erred in interfering with the punishment imposed upon the writ petitioner. 12. For the aforesaid reason, we allow this Appeal. 13. The impugned judgment and order dated 23rd August 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 17869 of 2009 is set aside. 14. CWJC No. 17869 of 2009 is dismissed. 15. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.