Madhuresh Prasad, J.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned State Counsel.

2. By way of instant writ proceedings, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 22.10.2008 of the District Magistrate, Nalanda, whereby and whereunder the punishment of withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect and forfeiture of salary for the period of suspension 28.08.2006 to 22.10.2008 has been awarded. The petitioner has also assailed the appellate order dated 29.03.2011 passed by the Divisional Commissioner, Patna in Service Appeal Case No.12 of 2009, rejecting the petitioner's appeal and affirming the punishment.

3. The brief factual matrix is arising from issuance of charge memo on Prapatra-`K'. The same is dated 04.10.2006 (Annexure 4), communicated to the petitioner on 30.11.2006. The same contains a charge that the petitioner has issued rent receipts for a piece of land in favour of two persons and thereby created a dispute. The charge memo based on these facts alleges that the petitioner has indulged in favouritism towards the two persons and had demonstrated negligence and dereliction of duty as well as lack of discipline in discharge of his duties.

4. The petitioner's defence to the charge memo was that the rent receipts were issued at a Camp Office. It is the petitioner's case that the Circle Officer was pressurizing the petitioner, who was then the Revenue Karamchari, to issue rent receipts, based on the documents produced at the Camp Office. It is his case that since the entire record was not available at the Camp Office, under pressure of his superior, he has issued the rent receipts, bona fide based on the documents made available at the Camp Office by the applicants.

5. The plea of the petitioner has been accepted by the enquiry officer. The enquiry report is dated 05.04.2007 (Annexure 6). Having accepted the petitioner's plea, the enquiry officer has concluded that the allegations of favouritism or indulging in any kind of unfair practice is unsustainable. The enquiry officer has clearly held that the charges, as contained in the charge memo dated 30.11.2006, could not be established in the proceedings.

6. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Biharsharif, based on the said enquiry report of the enquiry officer, has passed an order on 22.10.2008, imposing the punishment of withholding of two annual increments of the petitioner. The petitioner's suspension has thus been revoked and for the period of suspension, it has been directed that he shall only be entitled to subsistence allowance.

7. Against the order of the District Magistrate, the petitioner has filed an appeal before the Divisional Commissioner, Patna, bearing Service Appeal Case No.12 of 2009. The same has also been rejected by order dated 29.03.2011. While rejecting the petitioner's appeal, the Divisional Commissioner has recorded the following order:—

^^6- nksuksa i{kksa dks lquus] ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk fnukad 07-08-2009 dks ikfjr U;k; fu.kZ; ,oa fuEu U;k;ky; ls ÁkIr vfHkys[k dk voyksdu djus ds mijkUr eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igqaprk gwa fd vihydÙkkZ dks fn;k x;k n.M y?kq Js.kh dk gS] ftlds fy, lapkyu inkfèkdkjh dk Áfrosnu miyCèk djkus rFkk f}rh; dkj.k&i`PNk iwNs tkus dh vko';drk ugha gSA nwljh vksj vihydÙkkZ ds }kjk ,d gh Hkwfe dk nks O;fDr;ksa ds uke tekcUnh nks vyx&vyx jktLo f'kfojksa esa djus dk ÁLrko fn;k x;k] tks tkap@foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku lR; ik;k x;kA
vr% ftyk inkfèkdkjh] ukyUnk }kjk ikfjr vkns'k esa fdlh Ádkj dh gLr{ksi dh vko';drk ugha ikrs gq, vihy vkosnu dks vLohÑr fd;k tkrk gSA**

8. The questions therefore arising in the above noted facts and circumstances, is whether after issuing a charge memo, conducting an enquiry resulting in submission of an enquiry report holding the charges not proved, such findings favourable to the petitioner can be ignored by the disciplinary authority. After ignoring the findings, can the disciplinary authority be permitted to proceed further to straightaway pass an order of punishmen