Tapen Sen, J. - (1.) AT the very outset, it was found that some important pages of the records of this Writ Petition especially Annexure -4 - has been torn and therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner filed a bound Paper Book of the Writ Application in Court beginning from Page 1 to 293. Let it be kept on record.
(2.) HEARD Mr. Debt Prasad, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Lalit Kumar Lal and Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Dubey, Mr. M.M. Bannerjee appears on behalf of the respondents. The Writ Petitioner in the instant case has challenged and prayed for quashing the order of punishment passed on 8.1.1997 (Annexure -17, page 161) whereby and whereunder the Secretary -cum -Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 3) passed an order in the following terms : "That he be reduced in rank from the present position of Superintending Engineer in the scale of Rs. 4,100 -125 -4850 -150 -5900 to Senior Divisional Engineer and his pay should be fixed in the lower pay scale of Rs. 2200 -75 -2500 -EB -100 -3500 -125 -5000/ -. If his present pay is more than the maximum of the reduced pay scale then his pay in the reduced scale will be fixed at maximum Rs. 5000/ -. If it is less than Rs. 5000/ -, it would be fixed at appropriate level which would not be less than the present pay his is drawing. He will continue in the reduced scale for three years and he will not be entitled to any stagnation benefit during this period. After three years he will come back to his original rank of SE but will be placed below the junior -most SE (Mechanical) at that time. This order will come into effect from 1st February, 1997".
(3.) THE petitioner has also challenged and has prayed for quashing of the order dated 24.9.1997 (Annexure -19, page 167) which is the order of the Chairman being the Appellate Authority whereby and whereunder the punishment imposed was modified to the extent that the petitioner was directed to continue in the reduced scale of Senior Divisional Engineer for two years instead of three years as was ordered by the Secretary -cum -Disciplinary Authority (respondent No. 3). On the other aspects, the appellate authority did not interfere and confirmed the order of the respondent No. 3 who had passed the order of punishment in the manner indicated above and as contained at Annexure -17.;