IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18217 of 2011 Raghuvir Lal S/O Sri Basudeo Ram R/O Vill Rampur Bhikhampura, Ps.Sahebganj, P.O.Karnaul, Distt-Muzaffarpur, Then Assistant Office Of Regional Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Dept. Muzaffarpur Region, Muzaffarpur, Presently Working As Assistant Cabinet Secretariat, Bihar, Patna-------------------------------------Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of General Administration Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Public Health Engineering Bihar, Patna 4. The Member, Revenue Board-Cum-Appellate Authority Bihar, Patna 5. The Additional Secretary, Department Of General Administration Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 6. The Additional Secretary, Department Of Public Health and Engineering Bihar, Patna 7. The Deputy Secretary, Department Of General Administration Bihar, Patna-----------------Respondents. ---------------------------------- 2 24.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The Court has been put through the entire record relating to the charge which was drawn up against the petitioner with regard to certain omissions and commissions. Even though benefit of doubt has been given to petitioner with regard to first charge which has been stated to be procedural omission but there is specific finding given by the enquiry officer that the petitioner had interpolated the Equal Monthly Installment (in short EMI) for which he build up a defence that controlling authority had given him oral direction or permitted him to do so. This aspect has been dealt with both by disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as well as the Revisional authority who is Member Board of Revenue. 2 The re-fixation of EMI cannot be fixed by the petitioner of his own on the basis of oral direction of controlling officer and such power lies with the Finance Department alone. Obviously there is element of culpability on behalf of the petitioner which has been talked about by all the authorities in this regard. In my opinion respondents have taken a lenient view of the matter by awarding him punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. Petitioner should be grateful to the disciplinary authority that they have taken an indulgent view in the matter. No interference is required with the orders in question as it does not suffer from any legal infirmity. This writ application has no merit and it is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)