JUDGMENT :

Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.

2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following relief :-

(a) For quashing Memo No.364 dated 23.05.2007 issued by respondent No.4 whereby the respondent No.4 has differed from the findings of the Inquiry Officer and without issuing fresh show cause or giving further opportunity of hearing inflicted punishment of stoppage of six month yearly increment to the salary of the petitioner for the alleged act of indiscipline.

(b) For quashing of Memo No.190/Sa Sa dated 04.02.2008 issued by respondent No.3 whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against order dated 23.05.2007 has been dismissed.

(c) For quashing of Memo NO.888/D dated 20.09.2008 issued by respondent No.2 whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner against order dated 23.05.2007 and 04.02.2008 has been dismissed.

(d) For a direction upon the respondents to provide the petitioner all consequential benefits including monetary as well as promotional benefit.

3. The relevant facts necessary for disposal of the instant writ application is that on 12.09.2006, petitioner was served with memo of charge and he was informed that an enqui