Pramath Patnaik, J.

1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing the order dated 04.04.2009, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Department of Animal husbandary and Fisheries wherein, following punishments have been imposed :-

(a) Five increments have been stopped cumulatively

(b) Salary of suspension period has been withheld, and

(c) Salary has been withheld for unauthorized leave.

2. Sans details, the facts, as disclosed and delineated in the writ petition in a nutshell is that the petitioner is the permanent employee under the respondent and he is posted as Clerk. It has been averred in the writ application that the petitioner was posted as Clerk at Chatra in the year 2002 in the Office of veterinary Surgeon at Chatra the respondent no. 8 and his posting has been made by way of transfer, the letter issued by respondent no.7 contained in memo No. 333 dated 21.5.2002. It has been further averred that the petitioner being posted as Clerk, he had to deal with accounts of the office and it is pertinent to mention that since he was in charge of the accounts he followed the norms rules and procedure with regard to the accounts in the office. It has been further averred that the respondent no. 8 on various occasions directed the petitioner to pay the salary in cash to other employees and to deal the accounts not strictly within rules to which the petitioner could not be agree as the same may occur future accounts problem. It has been further submitted that the respondent no. 8, thereafter took up the entire accounts work of the office in his hand and get it done by Class IV employee of the office for the year 2004. It has been further stated that the respondent no. 7 issued a letter contained in letter No. 394 dated 10.6.04 to the respondent No. 8 and has complained to him that the accounts details for the year 2004 is incorrect and defective and has also directed him to get the accounts work done only by the office employees. It has been further stated that the Respondent No. 8 however continued to get done the accounts work by outsider which occurred various irregularities in accounts details. It has been further averred that the respondent No. 5 issued a letter to the respondent No. 8, whereby the respondent No. 8 has been directed to enquire into the accounts as also with regard to the negligence of the petitioner and the charges made against the petitioner by Sri Nasiruddin Ansari former Veterinary Surgeon, Chatra. It has been further submitted that the Respondent No. 8 issued a letter contained in letter No. 23 dated 2.3.06 to the respondent No. 5, whereby the respondent No. 8 has confirmed the audit clearance of the accounts for the year 2003-04 and has stated that the petitioner is innocent. It has been further stated that the respondent No. 8 has issued another letter being letter No. 23 dated 10.3.06 to the respondent No. 5 to the similar effect wherein it is mentioned that, the details of account, for the year 2003-04 is correct as per the audit as such the petitioner is innocent and that a same and identical letter has been send under the certificate of posting. It has been further averred that the respondent No. 3 issued a letter contained in letter No. 884, dated 27.4.06 to the respondent No. 8 whereby he has been directed to report as to whether both the letters has been issued by him or not. It has been further stated that the Respondent No. 8 thereafter issued two letters one being letter No. 59 dated 15.5.06 and another being letter No. 52 dated 15.5.06 and he has mentioned two different statements as in letter No. 52 it has clearly been mentioned that both the letters being memo No. 23 dated 2.3.06 as well as 10.3.06 has been issued by him and the same bears his signature, on the other in letter No. 59 it has been stated that both the letters have not been issued by him and the same has been issued by his forged signature. It has been further