Dr. Anshuman, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the name of the petitioner has wrongly been typed in the petition as ‘Awadesh’ whereas his correct name is ‘Awadhesh’. He is permitted to correct the same in the course of the day. Office is directed to correct the name of the parties everywhere in the soft and hard copy.

3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order communicated by letter No. 535 (15) dated 31.08.2015 issued by Joint Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, by which the review application has been rejected. The further prayer has been made for setting aside the order of punishment contained in notification No. 578 (15) dated 06.04.2011 issued under the signature of Joint Secretary, Department of Health and Family Welfare, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna, by which the petitioner has been awarded the punishment of reprimand, stoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and nothing is payable except the substantial allowances for the period of suspension (excluding the period of custody). The further prayer has been made that the entire departmental proceeding arising out of memo of charge dated 11.02.2006 be declared as erroneous and misplaced and to quash the entire proceedings based on the said charge memo.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as Assistant Drug Controller in the Drug Control Department, Govt. of Bihar. He submits that his service was guided by the Bihar Government Servant (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the CCA Rules, 2005’). Counsel submits that he was put under suspension by a letter issued to him vide memo No. 109 (15) dated 17.01.2017. Petitioner was communicated the resolution of the Health Department contained in memo No. 1331 (15) dated 11.12.2006 whereby it was decided to initiate the departmental proceeding. With the said resolution, memo of charge dated 04.12.2006 was attached which is Annexure-2. Learned counsel submits that the article of charge itself are vague and cryptic, because there is absence of detail of charge in the said charge memo. One of the charge was stated to be misuse of post and accumulating disproportionate asset and second allegation was the allegation leveled in letter No. 882 (15) dated 28.08.2006. Counsel submits that according to Rule 17 (3) of the CCA Rules, 2005, the substance of the imputation misconduct or misbehaviour as a definite and distinct article of charge should be mentioned in the charge memo. As such, the said charge has been issued in gross violation of section 17 (3) (i) of the CCA Rules, 2005.

5. Learned counsel further submits that after receiving the charge memo, the counsel has appeared before the inquiry Officer and submitted his reply. Learned counsel submits that though there were no specific charges made in the charge memo in its second part. But the Inquiry Officer at the time of hearing the petitioner has framed the separate charges and on each charge the petitioner has submitted reply and subsequently, inquiry report has been submitted, which is annexed as Annexure- 3. According to the said inquiry report, the separate charges were bifurcated in the category of charge No. 1, Charge No. 2 (k), 2 (kh), 2 (g), 2 (gha), 2 (anga) and 2 (cha). In the conclusion, the Inquiry Officer in its inquiry report has not reached on any conclusion with regard to charge No. 1 on the ground that case is going on in the vigilance Court and, therefore, restrain himself to take any decision on the said charge. But so far as the other charges are concerned i.e., Charge No. 2 (k), 2 (kh), 2 (g), 2 (gha), 2 (anga) and 2 (cha), he found that no charges were proved. Learned counsel submits that thereafter a punishment letter was issued to the petitioner vide Memo No. 616 (15) dated 19.04.2007. By the said letter, three pun