Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 1793 dated 2.7.2004 (Annexure -7) by which following punishment has been imposed: - (i) Censure (ii) Stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and (iii) He would be entitled for the payment of subsistence allowances during the period of suspension.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that while the petitioner was posted as Junior Engineer, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him by serving a memorandum of charge vide resolution contained in Memo No. 2180 dated 19.7.2003. The charge which has been alleged against the petitioner is that without inspecting site, he prepared estimate and again by changing the estimate, work had been started. The petitioner was put under suspension and filed reply to show cause. The inquiry was conducted in which the petitioner had participated. Then inquiry officer submitted its detailed enquiry report on 27.1.2004 in which charges levelled against the petitioner was not found to be proved against the petitioner in the enquiry report but the inquiry officer has given a finding on a charge, which was not the subject matter of the charge i.e. finding with respect of giving contrary statement in his reply to show cause.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of punishment has been passed on the basis of said inquiry report in which the charge which have been alleged against the petitioner, have not been found to be proved but the disciplinary authority had found the charge proved against the petitioner, which was not alleged against him in the memorandum of charge and was not the subject of charge and as such the disciplinary authorities have imposed punishment inflicting one of the major punishments i.e. stoppage of two increment with cumulative effect.;