D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 6th April, 2015 in W.P.(S) No. 5050 of 2013, whereby, the order of punishment of stoppage of one increment for three years with cumulative effect, challenged by this appellant (original petitioner), has not been quashed by the learned Single Judge, as prayed by this appellant in the writ petition and, hence, the original petitioner has preferred present Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has imposed punishment on 17th October, 2008 for the misconduct as minimum water level was not maintained by this appellant in water canal. This appellant is an Engineer. Thus, there is dereliction on duty by this appellant which may develop cracks in the canal if proper water level is not maintained. For this charge, ultimately this appellant (original petitioner) was punished and there was stoppage of one increment for three years with cumulative effect. This appellant has retired in the year 2013.
(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that very lenient view has been taken by the Government in imposing punishment looking to the nature of misconduct by this appellant, which is proved. Not to maintain minimum water level in the canal has a far reaching consequence. Huge expenditure has to incur by the Government. Nonetheless, there is only stoppage of one increment for three years with cumulative effect. We see no reason to interfere with the reasons given by the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition. Moreover, during the aforesaid period of three years from the order of Disciplinary Authority dated 17th October, 2008, one more misconduct was committed by this appellant, but, ultimately as stated hereinabove lenient Government has exonerated him, we are not analyzing the second misconduct, at this stage, but, suffice it to say that as he has already retired in the year 2013, no much financial burden has to bear by this appellant. Even otherwise also, the punishment inflicted upon this appellant cannot be labelled as shockingly disproportionate nor it can be labelled as unreasonably excessive punishment looking to the nature of misconduct. The order of the Disciplinary Authority of the year 2008 has been challenged in the writ petition directly in the year 2013, without preferring departmental appeal i.e. after the retirement of this appellant. Hence also, we see no reason to entertain any of the prayers made in this appeal. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. Hence, there being no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and, therefore, the same is, hereby, dismissed with a cost of Rs.10,000/ (Rupees Ten Thousand) which will be paid by this appellant before the Water Resources Department, State of Jharkhand within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the said amount will be deducted in ten installments from the pension of this appellant or from the gratuity of this appellant.;