JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. Since both the writ applications involve the issue of forfeiture of pension of petitioner, with the consent of the parties both the writ applications have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. These are the 3rd and 4th writ applications involving the issue of forfeiture of pension.

4. Earlier C.W.J.C. No. 548 of 2016 was filed by the petitioner for payment of pensionary benefits. In the meanwhile, the respondents decided to forfeit the 100% pension in purported exercise of power under Rule 43(b) of the Bihar Pension Rules.

5. The decision to forfeit 100% pension was challenged in C.W.J.C. No. 9009 of 2017. In view of the subsequent development, C.W.J.C. No. 548 of 2016 was disposed of on 01.11.2017 with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the legality and validity of forfeiture of 100% pension in C.W.J.C. No. 9009 of 2017.

6. The petitioner was aggrieved by the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 548 of 2017 filed L.P.A. No. 1672 of 2017, which was dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2018.

7. The issue as to forfeiture of 100% pension was examined by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9009 of 2017 and the Court on appreciation of various aspects of the matter came to the finding that forfeiture of 100% pension is not justified and directed the respondents to revisit the issue of quantum of punishment of forfeiture of 100% pension. The relevant part of the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 9009 of 2017 is quoted herein below:

"10. Sentencing an employee after a departmental proceeding is an important aspect of any proceeding and the same cannot be carried out without an element of sensitiveness. While sentencing an employee, the factors which would constitute important indices for coming to a conclusion would be (a) nature of charges, (b) past conduct and (c) whether any penalty was imposed earlier and most importantly the nature of duties assigned to the delinquent employee.

11. In the present case, the involvement of the petitioner in the criminal case was only on the finding that he had amassed property which was disproportionate to the known sources of his income. No specific instance of any bribe taking or of having departed from any set rule of principles has been alleged against the petitioner. A punishment can only be justified if the quantum is commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and any disproportionate penalty would definitely be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

12. Corruption in government service is a very serious offence but the same cannot only be thrust upon an employee in whose house properties of higher valuation than his known sources of income have been found. Lest this Court may not be misunderstood, no misplaced sympathy is being shown to the delinquent employee but seizure of 100% pension for life cannot, in this circumstance, be tested positive on the touchstone of proportionality or reasonableness.

13. A punishment can be said to be disproportionate if it is shocking to the conscious of the court or no reasonable man would impose such punishment. A court will definitely not substitute its own opinion but can definitely form an opinion regarding the proportionality of the same.

14. The gravity of an offence is no doubt an indicator to the disciplinary authority for making a choice of sentence but it is equally true that the sentence ought not to be more grave and harsh than the charge.

15. The sentence imposed upon the petitioner does not, in the opinion of this court, cross the litmus test of proportionality as also reasonableness. Seizure of 100% pension would leave an employee with nothing to feed him. The property, which was not found to be in proportion to his known source of income will not, even if the charge is accepted to be absolutely true, give him anything for sustaining himself. With the seizure of 100% pension, the basic human right of an employee/delinq