1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

2. The prayer in this writ application reads as follow:

"1(A) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the notification dated 31.5.05 contained, in Annexure-5.

(B) For directing the respondents concerned to stay the operation of the Annexure-5 forthwith."

3. It would be also relevant to take into note that by the impugned order dated 31.5.2005 (Annexure-5). the petitioner has been subjected to certain punishment which reads as follows:

4. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel would submit that the impugned order is a clear proof of non-application of mind, inasmuch as, the petitioner has been punished on account of filing of a counter affidavit in this Court. He would also submit that when the petitioner had explained his action of filing the counter affidavit by submitting his show-cause reply dated 11.2.2004 and had taken a specific plea that not only the said counter affidavit was filed by him in terms of the direction of the Chief Engineer but facts stated therein by him in capacity of the Executive Engineer of the Division were based on records and that such decision for al