(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the notification dated 31.08.2017 by which the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement.
(2.) The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub Registrar on 07.07.1989 and while he was working as Additional District Registrar, Siwan, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 01.04.2015 issued by the Respondent No. 3 whereby and whereunder, it had been alleged that while he was working as Additional District Registrar, Rohtas, the Principal Accountant General had reported that in the year 2013-14, on account of wrong classification of the land under Chenari Anchal, a loss of Rs. 13.13 lakhs had been caused to the exchequer and secondly, the petitioner had failed to perform his duty causing loss of revenue. The petitioner had submitted his show cause reply denying the charges whereafter a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Resolution dated 28.05.2015. The petitioner had then participated in the departmental inquiry and the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report vide Memo dated 27.07.2015, finding the charges levelled against the petitioner to have been proved. The Disciplinary Authority had then issued a second show notice dated 12.08.2015 to the petitioner herein, which was replied to by the petitioner herein and thereafter, the impugned order of punishment dated 31.08.2017 was passed by the Disciplinary Authority, inflicting the punishment of compulsory retirement upon the petitioner herein.
(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 31.08.2017 only on the ground that the punishment of compulsory retirement is not commensurate to the charges levelled against him and the same is shockingly disproportionate. In this context, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a judgment of this Court dated 09.05.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4509 of 2016 to contend that in similar situation, the punishment of compulsory retirement was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh consideration on the issue of quantum of punishment.