DEEPAK ROSHAN,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
(2.) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following reliefs; (i) For the issuance of a writ, order, direction for quashing the notification as contained in notification no. 4833 (S) dated 07.07.2008 issued under the signature of respondent no.3, whereby and where under 2 punishments has been imposed upon the petitioner:- (a) His annual increment has been withheld with cumulative effect, and. (b) Till the date of superannuation he will be posted in non-work post. (ii) For the issuance of a writ, order, direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith issue appropriate posting order in favor of the petitioner since the date of notification dated 07.07.2008. However, the suspension of the petitioner has been revoked and his service have been placed before the Rural Development Department, but till to date no posting order has been issued. (iii) For the issuance of a writ, order, direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the entire arrears of salary for the period of suspension. (iv) For the issuance of a writ, order, direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith release the current salary with effect from 07.07.2008, which has been withheld without any order from any competent authority. (v) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, particularly a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of notification no. 5048 (s) dated 19.07.2012, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment dated 07.07.2008 has been modified by extending the punishment to the effect that the petitioner will not be entitled to get anything save and except subsistence allowance during the period of suspension.
(3.) The facts as disclosed in the instant writ application are that while the petitioner was posted as Superintending Engineer, Building Circle, Dumka, one tender was issued for the construction work of the Collectorate Building of Pakur and in pursuance to that the National Building Construction Corporation was selected for the execution of work for which an agreement was also executed. Thereafter, on 28.02.2005 an audit was conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in which it was found that excess payment of Rs. 25.91 lakh has been paid against the contractor on the basis of inflated rates of steel, rods and sand.;