The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed on the petitioner must be in accordance with the relevant rules and any deviation from the rules renders the punishment untenable in the eyes of the law.

Mohit Kr. Shah, J.

1. The petitioner by way of the present writ petition has sought quashing of order dated 31.03.2016 issued by the Respondent No. 2 whereby and where under the punishment of permanent reduction of pay to the lowest stage in time scale of pay of Junior Engineer has been inflicted on the petitioner herein as well as it has been directed that the petitioner would be entitled for next increment of lowest stage of pay after 14.10.2006. It was further directed by the impugned order dated 31.03.2016 that for the suspension period, the petitioner would not be entitled to any other allowances or benefits except the subsistence allowance.

2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer on 15.01.1988 in the Public Works Department (P.W.D), which is now known as Road Construction Department and later on, the services of the petitioner was sent to the Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar. At a time, when the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer in the Rural Development Department and was posted in the office of the Block Development Officer, Sherghati, Gaya, in the year 2002, a project was floated for the construction of two rooms of primary school, Palakia, Sherghati, Gaya and the petitioner was directed by the B.D.O., Sherghati, Gaya to assess the progress of the ongoing construction work of the said school building, though, the construction work of the school was being done by the Department itself through Mr. Surya Kumar Sinha, Block Statistical Supervisor, Sherghati, Gaya, who had made an application to the B.D.O. for release of fund to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for clearing the existing liabilities against the work done and for further execution of the construction work whereupon the petitioner was instructed to assess the ongoing work on account of the technical supervision and the in-charge of the work being on leave. The petitioner had inspected and assessed the work done on the site and reported on 20.02.2003 that approximately work worth Rs. 70,000/- had already been done, hence, an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- may be released. Thereafter, it appears that upon complain with regard to the irregularity being committed in the construction work of the said school, an inquiry was conducted by the Executive Engineer, Gaya, and he submitted a report dated 12.03.2004, perusal whereof would show that the petitioner was nowhere in the picture. Nonetheless, the petitioner was suspended by memo dated 21.09.2005, where after, a departmental proceeding was initiated by Memo dated 29.10.2005 and the petitioner was served with the charge-sheet on the following allegations:-

(i) while the petitioner was posted at Sherghati division, he did not assess the work done properly as a result whereof on his recommendation, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of advance was given to Shri Surya Kumar Sinha. It has been alleged that several discrepancies were found in the construction work of the said building upon an inspection being made on 13.02.2004.

(ii) It has been alleged that the petitioner had engaged in gross irregularities and had recommended for payment of advance amount ignoring the estimate and its technical aspects.

(iii) It has been alleged that though virtually no work of brick soling in the foundation work or RCC costing work had been done, but still the petitioner had recommended that work worth Rs. 70,000/- has been completed, hence, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- be given for future work, which indicates that the petitioner had conspired with others to misappropriate the Government money.

3. The petitioner had then participated in the inquiry proceeding and the Inquiry Officer by the inquiry report dated 21.01.2006 had found the charges to have not been proved against the petitioner herein and the petitioner was exonerated by the Inquiry Officer. Thereafter, a second show cause notice dated 03.07.2006 was issued against the petitioner herein, to which the petitio