IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12089 of 2006 DINANATH RAM Versus PATNA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS ----------- 4 05.09.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Vide order dated 08.09.2005, the order of suspension passed against petitioner was revoked and based on a show cause issued to him contained in Annexure – 1 and his reply to the same contained in Annexure -2. Minor punishment was of warning as well as nonpayment of salary for the period of suspension came to be passed. The petitioner has challenged the said order in the present writ application contained in Annexure – 3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has been arbitrarily punished on baseless charges. There is no occasion for imposition of even minor punishment against him in the given issue. The court has perused the show cause or the charge which was issued to the petitioner contained in Annexure – 1 as well as the so-called reply filed by him contained in Annexure – 2. There are allegations which have consequences for the administration and the responsibility of the petitioner which he was assigned, but his reply is quite evasive and does not meet the issue raised in the so- called charges or the show cause issued to him. If the reply of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and then the respondents have all the freedom and authority to award minor punishment in question and for which a notice or show cause is good enough. - 2 - The court does find any infirmity in the order of punishment. Looking at the above background, the writ application is dismissed as being devoid of any merit. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)