The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of disparity in punishment, where the court found that singling out the petitioner for punishment while others involved in the misappropriation were not subjected to disciplinary proceedings or punishment amounted to unfair treatment.

This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the respondent-State of Bihar against the judgment and order dated 20th October 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in CWJC No.9663 of 2010.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 9th April 2010 made by the State Government, the respondent- writ petitioner, a cashier in the office of the Executive Engineer, Design Division, Water Resources Department, Birpur, District-Supaul, filed above CWJC No.9663 of 2010 under Article 226 of the Constitution. Under the aforesaid order dated 9th April 2010, the petitioner has been, in exercise of power conferred by Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules, 1950, visited with punishment of withholding of the entire pension and direction has been issued to recover the amount of monetary loss suffered by State Government as under:

^^¼1½- #0 55-97 yk[k dh voS/k jkf’k dh fudklh dh olwyh lsokfuo`fr ds QyLo:i ns; miknku ls dh tk;sxhA ;fn xcfur jkf’k esa ls miknku dh dVkSrh ds i’pkr jkf’k ns;rk gks rks mldh olwyh vkjksih ds fo:) euhlwV nk;j dj olwyh dh tk;sxh A euhlwV nk;j djus ds fy;s eq[; vfHk;Urk] ohjiqj dks vf/kd`r fd;k x;k A

¼2½- ’kr izfr’kr isa’ku ij jksd A**

3. In view of uncertainty about the date of superannuation of the petitioner, the aforesaid order dated 9th April 2010 was modified under order dated 13th May 2010. The said modified order reads as under:

^^¼1½- #0 55-97 yk[k dh voS/k jkf’k dh olwyh ds fy, euhlqV nk;j fd;k tk;A vkns’k la0& 74] fnukad 05-04-2010 ¼Kkikad& 618] fnukad 09-04-2010½ }kjk lalwfpr 'ks"k n.M ,oa 'kÙkZ ;Fkkor jgsxkA



¼2½- Jh vyhen~hu dh lsokiqLr v|ru dj miknku dh jkf’k dh x.kuk dh dkjZokbZ fu;ekuqlkj dh tk;A

¼3½- lsokfuo`fr ds laca/k esa xyr lwpuk nsus ds fy, Jh 'ks[k vyheqn~hu] lsokfuo`Rr jksdM+iky ds fo#) foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh dj izLrko fn;k tk; ,oa Jh vyheqn~hu ds fo#) izkFkfedh ntZ dh tk;A**

4. Not only the petitioner has been punished for the proved misconduct, order has been made to initiate departmental proceeding for misrepresentation in respect of his date of superannuation.

5. The petitioner challenged the above referred order of punishment on the ground of disparity alone. According to the petitioner, the entire incidence of misappropriation of Government fund was noticed by the auditors. The auditors had opined that not only the petitioner but many others were involved in the said incidence of misappropriation. According to the petitioner, the petitioner was singled out in imposing punishment upon him whereas the others, the Engineers who were themselves drawing and disbursing authorities, were allowed to go scot-free. Neither the disciplinary proceeding was initiated against them; nor they were punished.

6. The petition was contested by the State Government. The learned single Judge has allowed the writ petition on the ground of disparity. The learned single Jude has observed that although along with the petitioner two others were named in the chargesheet, no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the said two persons. The learned single Judge has also observed that if several persons had connived in misappropriation of the Government fund, the entire amount cannot be allowed to be recovered from the writ petitioner. In view of the aforesaid finding, the learned single Judge has set aside the order of punishment. Therefore, this Appeal.

7. In course of the hearing, under order dated 1st July 2014, we had directed the appellant State Government to produce the entire record of the disciplinary proceedings. In compliance of the said order, the original records were brought before the court and a supplementary affidavit has been filed to produce on record all relevant documents before the Court.

8. Learned advocate Mr. Navjot Yeshu has raised an objection. He has submitted that pending the Appeal, the State Government is debarred from producing fresh materials on the record. In support thereof, he has relied on our order dated 26th November 2013 made in th