Bibek Chaudhuri, J.—The Petitioner, Chakleshwar Kharwar, was posted as an Assistant Engineer in the Irrigation Subdivision, Murliganj under the Water Resources Department, Bihar. Allegations arose regarding his supervision of a construction project at R.D. 28.00 of Sukliasan Distributory, wherein irregularities were reported in the quality and alignment of the construction work. The Flying Squad of the department, followed by a six-member committee, conducted an investigation into the project, which found significant defects in the structure. The Petitioner was placed under suspension on 09.07.2018. The department initiated a formal enquiry under Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005, which culminated in the imposition of a penalty for withholding four increments of pay.

2. Aggrieved by the proceedings and penalty, the Petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. The Petitioner seeks quashing of Memo No. 826, dated 12.08.2021, issued by the Deputy Secretary, Water Resources Department, Government of Bihar, imposing a penalty of withholding four increments of pay with cumulative effect. The Petitioner also challenges Memo No. 649, dated 24.03.2022, rejecting his review petition. The Petitioner seeks quashing of Memo No. 648, dated 24.03.2022, which ordered that no salary be paid for the suspension period except subsistence allowance. The Petitioner prays for directions to pay full salary for the suspension period, along with all consequential benefits.

4. The Petitioner was suspended from his position on 09.07.2018, as per Memo No. 1472. Shortly after, on 20.07.2018, he received a memo of charges (Prapatra-K) under Letter No. 1558, requiring him to respond. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on 08.10.2018 and later provided a supplementary explanation on 28.08.2019. Despite explanations given by the Petitioner, no response regarding the acceptance or rejection thereof was communicated. On 11.09.2019, the Water Resources Department decided to initiate a departmental proceeding against him, appointing an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer. The Inquiry Officer directed the Petitioner to appear on 30.09.2019, where the Petitioner submitted his written statement of defense. A follow-up hearing took place on 14.10.2019, during which the Petitioner reiterated his defense.

5. That on 06.01.2020, a second show cause notice was issued, along with the inquiry report, dated 11.11.2019, which found the charges levelled against the Petitioner to be proven. The Petitioner responded to this notice on 08.01.2020 and given a supplementary reply on 05.02.2020. On 12.08.2021, a penalty was imposed, withholding four increments of pay with cumulative effect. The Petitioner filed a review petition on 22.09.2021, followed by a supplementary review on 06.10.2021, both of which were rejected by Memo No. 649 on 24.03.2022. After suspension, the Petitioner was asked to show cause why no salary should be paid, except for the subsistence allowance. Despite his explanation submitted on 24.09.2021, a decision was taken on 24.03.2022 that nothing beyond subsistence allowance would be payable for the suspension period.

6. The Respondents state that the Petitioner, while serving as the Supervising Officer for construction work at R.D. 28.00 failed to ensure that the project adhered to the sanctioned design and estimate. A committee inspection revealed significant defects in the structure, rendering it unusable. This failure allegedly resulted in a financial loss of Rs. 13,43,042/- to the government exchequer. In response to these findings, the department launched formal proceedings under Rule 17 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 2005, citing negligence on the Petitioner’s part. The Petitioner’s defense was reviewed during the enquiry process, but the enquiry report concluded that the charges were substantiated.

7. Following the inquiry, the disciplinary authority