Ananda Sen, J.

The appellant-writ petitioner (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the appellant’) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 1.12.2016 passed in WP(S) No. 2636 of 2016 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. For the purpose of deciding the instant Letters Patent Appeal, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts. Only relevant fact, which relates to the dispute in question is being narrated here-in-below;

(a) The writ-petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Engineer on 16.06.1987 and he was promoted to the post of Executive Engineer (Civil) with effect from 15.06.1995. The Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, transferred the services of the petitioner in the Building Construction Department and he assumed the charge of Superintending Engineer in the said Department. A Notification was issued on 17.7.2007 by which, the additional charge of Chief Engineer in Building Construction Department was given to the petitioner. Vide Notification dated 31.12.2008, the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi took back the services of the petitioner and thereafter the petitioner was posted as Chief Engineer, In-charge, National Highway Wing, Jharkhand, Ranchi, independently under the Road Construction Department. The petitioner was granted regular promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer (Civil) in the Road Construction Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi. A tender was invited for the Construction of Bridge over Dhamni Nala for the year 2012-13 bearing Job No. 075-JHR-2012-13-222 in which, four bidders participated in the tender process. The rate of each bidder was same and was of the lowest permissible rate.

(b) A complaint was filed by one of the unsuccessful bidders in relation to the said tender. A Memo bearing No. 7156(S) dated 8.8.2013 was issued to the petitioner seeking explanation. The petitioner furnished his reply on 06.09.2013. Nothing happened thereafter rather the petitioner was granted regular promotion to the post of Superintending Engineer vide Notification dated 8th July, 2014.

(c) Suddenly, vide Notification No. 2650(S) dated 26.04.2016, the Road Construction Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi imposed a punishment of “Censure” upon the petitioner.

(d) Being aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner preferred a writ petition being WP(S) No. 2636 of 2016, wherein, he prayed to quash Notification No. 2650(S) dated 26.4.2016 and further Notification No. 2651(S) dated 26.4.2016 (by which, the punishment order of “Censure” was communicated to the petitioner).

(e) After hearing the parties, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ application, hence, this appeal.

3. The senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order of punishment is absolutely bad. He further submits that the punishment of “Censure” could not have been passed against the appellant-writ petitioner as the show-cause dated 8.8.2013 itself is absolutely vague. He also submits that nowhere in the said show cause it has been mentioned that the State contemplates to punish the petitioner. He also submits that the tender, which was complained of, later on was cancelled as such, there was no loss to the State exchequer. He further submits that the petitioner had taken into consideration different circulars issued by the State Government and it cannot be said that the petitioner had flouted any of the Rules and thus, he could not be punished by the Department. Senior counsel for the petitioner lastly submits that the impugned order of punishment is also bad as the same is un-reasoned one and this fact has not been taken into consideration by the learned Single Judge.

4. The counsel for the respondents-State, on the other hand, supports the impugned order of punishment and submits that the petitioner has committed grave illegality and has violated the rules of seniority and thus, the punishment order of 'Censure' has rightly been passed against the petitioner.

5. After hea