Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

2. The former writ application questions an order of punishment in a departmental proceeding. It affects his claim for promotion in the latter case. Both applications are therefore connected and have been taken up for consideration together and are being disposed by a common order.

3. The petitioner who held the post of Superintending Engineer at the relevant point of time is aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 13.5.2009 in a departmental proceeding visiting him with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and censure to be entered in his character roll for the years 1997-1998. The challenge is also to the subsequent order dated 23.6.2009 rejecting the Revision application preferred by him under Section 24(2) of the Civil Services [Classification Control and Appeal Rules] 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules’).

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that for certain alleged acts of payments made to fictitious muster roll employees fixing liability for embezzlement to the extent of Rs. 1,14,461/-, Lakhisarai Surajgarha B. B. Bazar PS Case No. 85 of 1998 was lodged against h