IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8711 of 2009 Sanjivan Choudhary . Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors . ----------- 3. 09.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner, an Executive Engineer at the relevant point of time was subjected to a show cause notice on 15.7.2006, which was duly replied to. A supplementary show cause notice was thereafter given to him which has also been replied to when the final order of punishment dated 5.9.2008 visiting him with censure to be entered in his character roll for the year 2003-04, withholding of five increments with non-cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 10,563/- has been ordered. The petitioner is stated to have superannuated in May, 2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the punishments are minor, the reply given by the petitioner to the show cause notice was required to be dealt with in a reasoned and speaking manner. The first charge related to delay in issuance of salary. The petitioner had replied that late receipt of last pay certificates of the concerned was the cause for the delay. This has not been disbelieved. 2 The finding is that he should have been more sensitive in matter of salary. It cannot be construed as a finding of guilt. On the second charge, it is submitted that the allegation is of splitting up of the Bills of quantity in separate tenders without approval of the competent authority. The technical advisors had twice inspected the works in progress. No objection was raised by them. There are no allegations of deficiency in works or misuse of funds. It was at best an irregularity, but which stood condoned by conduct of the superiors. On the third charge it was submitted after April, 2004 the petitioner did not draw house rent allowance. Counsel for the State submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been rejected on 12.7.2010. The original order of punishment dated 5.9.2008 is reasoned requiring no interference. The order of punishment does not disbelieve the defence of the petitioner that the delay in disbursement of salary to others was on account of late receipt of last pay certificate. There is no finding of guilt against him. No punishment can be founded on an inconclusive opinion based on conjectures and surmises. I 3 There are no allegations of financial embezzlement or poor quality of work by issuance of different tenders without formal approval. The impugned order does not deny his defence that the work during progress was twice inspected by the technical advisors who did not raise any objections. The aforesaid is sufficient to hold for a verbal approval by conduct. On the third charge, the petitioner has not been able to make out any defence for availing house rent allowance prior to April 2004 even while he was living in a Government accommodation. This finding to that extent requires no interference. The punishment to the extent of the first two charges is therefore held to be vitiated and not sustainable in so far as censure and withholding of increments is concerned. It is set aside to that extent. The Court is not persuaded to interfere with the third punishment for recovery of Rs. 10,563/-. The writ application is allowed to the extent indicated. If the increments have been recovered from the petitioner, the same are directed to be returned to him. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)