HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 13.02.2014 whereby the order of punishment dated 17.03.2011, wherein the punishment of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect was not interfered with though the order of withholding the salary except to the extent of subsistence allowance already paid was set aside.

2. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant is that there were six charges levelled against the appellant in the charge sheet dated 01.07.2006. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 13.03.2008, has returned a finding of proof of charge nos. 1 and 2 and partial proof of charge no. 3. It is contended that such charges are not proved in view of the stand of the Department before the Enquiry Officer. Thus, there is no evidence for imposition of penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.

3. We do not find any merit in the argument raised. The charge no. 1 is that instead of laying of 1 ft. PCC slab, the appellant raised a slab of 3" only and thus caused a loss of Rs. 16,557/- whereas charge no. 2 pertains to that without quotation the appellant has u