HARISH KUMAR, J.

Heard Mr. Gyan Shankar, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Md. Obaidullah, learned Advocate for the State.

2. By filing the present writ petition, the challenge is made to an order contained in memo no. 524 dated 24.01.2018 passed under the signature of the Joint Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar whereby the petitioner has been inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of four increment of salary with cumulative effect as also recovery of Rs. 2,48,517/- from the salary of the petitioner. It is further directed that for suspension period, except subsistence allowance, the petitioner shall not be entitled to any benefit.

3. Before proceeding in the matter a preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the counsel for the State that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy under Rule 28 of the Bihar Government Servants (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 hereinafter referred to as Rules, 2005. However, the petitioner instead of availing that remedy, has approached this Court.

4. In response to the aforesaid contention learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that since the order impugned is in disregard to the principles of natural justice, hence the present writ application may be entertained and effective order can be passed. On this premise, this Court proceeded to hear the matter.

5. The short facts which led to the filing of the present writ petition is that while the petitioner was working as a Child Development Project Officer, Rajoun, Banka, a complaint was made at the behest of local MLA with respect to certain irregularities in relation to repairing work of a Government vehicle and defalcation of Government money. Based upon such complaint, the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of a departmental proceeding under Rule 9 (1) (?) of Rules, 2005 vide Annexure 6 to the writ petition dated 22.12.2014. A memo of charge was duly served upon the petitioner with an imputation that an amount of Rs. 2,48,517/- has been defalcated on the basis of false bills against repairing and oil expenses, whereas the second charge was relating to dereliction in duty primarily, based upon first charge. The copy of memo of charge is placed as Annexure 7 to the writ petition. The Joint Secretary, Social Welfare Department was appointed as Enquiry Officer whereas the District Programme Officer, Lakhisarai was made Presenting Officer.

6. On direction, the petitioner submitted her appearance before the Enquiry Officer and filed her comprehensive show cause reply annexing all the documents in support of her defence. While the disciplinary proceeding was going on, the petitioner had further been served with a supplementary memo of charge with an imputation that the petitioner has not handed over the charge of official vehicle and mobile within time, besides the charge of tampering with the documents. The petitioner effectively responded to the supplementary charges too by filing a detailed reply, the copy of which is marked as Annexure 10 to the writ petition. The enquiry was concluded and the Enquiry Officer has returned the finding, whereas the two charges contained in the first memo of charge stood proved.

7. So far as the supplementary memo of charge is concerned, out of three charges, two of them have been partially proved and with respect to charge no. 3, the petitioner has been exonerated. On receipt of the enquiry report, the petitioner was served with the second show cause notice, which was duly responded by the petitioner; however, the same did not find favour and the impugned order as contained in memo no. 524, dated 24.01.2018 came to be passed, which is under challenge.

8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner taking this Court through the memo of charge and the enquiry report has submitted that the Enquiry Officer has proceeded beyond the imputation as levelled in the memo of charge and gave finding on the charges, which was not even the imputation and part of