Rajiv Roy, J. – Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: –

(i) issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution dated 25/07/2013 passed by the concerned authorities under the Labour Resources Department of the State Government, by which in terms of the provisions contained under rule 14 (V) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner as a minor penalty;

(ii) issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the resolution dated 14/10/2016 issued by the concerned authorities under the Labour Resources Department of the State Government, by which the review petition preferred by the petitioner against the resolution dated 25/07/2013, by which the punishment of withholding of two increments without cumulative effect had been inflicted upon the petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 14 (V) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005 has been rejected;

(iii) issuance of a direction, order or writ, including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned respondent authorities to extend all the consequential benefits in favour of the petitioner that have been denied to him on account of the passing the impugned resolution dated 25/07/2013 passed by the concerned authorities under the Labour Resources Department of the State Government, by which in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 14 (V) of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, the punishment of withholding of two increments. without cumulative effect has been inflicted upon the petitioner as a minor penalty.

3. The short facts relating to the writ petition is/are that the petitioner joined as a Labour Superintendent in the year 1995 and while posted in the office of Agriculture Labour, Patna was given the additional charge of Labour Superintendent, Lakhisarai for a brief period from August, 2009 to December, 2009.

4. On 07.04.2011, while he was serving as a Labour Superintendent, Agriculture Labour, Patna, received letter from the office of the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger which related to an enquiry report pursuant to the direction of the National Human Right Commission, New Delhi (henceforth for short, 'the Commission'). On perusal of it, it was found that it relates to the use of child labour in the colour and vermilion factory at Lakhisarai and the report 'the Commission' had sought for was of the years 2000-2001 (Annexure-1).

5. From the records, it seems that in 2000-2001, a petition was preferred before 'the Commission' alleging the use of child labour in chemical factory in the district of Lakhisarai, after which report was sought for.

6. At the relevant period, the Official posted there was Mr. Aditya Rajhansh who remained as Labour Superintendent, Lakhisarai from the period June, 1998 to 17th July, 2001. He was followed by Smt. Kavita Kumari who was posted from 17.07.2001 to the year 2002.

7. The petitioner comes at Serial No. 6 having been posted for a brief period between 14.08.2009 to 26.12.2009.

8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was unrelated to the entire episode inasmuch as the matter was never placed during his brief stay at Lakhisarai.

9. He has further taken this Court to the izi= ^d* issued to him by the District Magistrate, Lakhisarai on 13.04.2011 to show that the documents that has been annexed as evidences relates to the year 2000-2002. The only document that has come against him is the report of the Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger.

10. He submits that before he joined the office of Labour Superintendent, Lakhisarai in August 2009, pursuant to the letter of 'the Commission' no. 263 dated 16.05.2017, the then Labour Superintenden