IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4860 of 2010 1. CHITRANJAN SHARMA S/O LATE NATHUNI SHARMA R/O VILL.- SOHSA, P.S.- KINJAR, DISTT.- ARWAL Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. DY. SECRETARY (VIGILANCE), DEPARTMENT OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION, BIHAR, PATNA 4. ENGINEER-IN-CHIEF CUM-ADDL.COMMISSIONER-CUM- SPL.SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION BIHAR, PATNA 5. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NORTH BIHAR, ROAD CIRCLE, MUZAFFARPUR ----------- 2. 9.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 10.8.2009 imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect. The petitioner is stated to have represented on 11.11.2008 for transfer on account of personal difficulties. On 1.6.2009 he was issued memo of charge on the ground that he bypassed departmental procedures in representing directly before the Departmental Minister and not routing his application through proper channel. This was not only violative of Rule 22 of the Government Service Conduct Rules, 1976 but also indicative of indiscipline. The petitioner replied to the same when 2 punishment was passed on 10.8.2009. The appeal preferred by him has been rejected on 18.1.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule 22 has no application in the facts of the case. It is his submission that Rule-22 deals with the bringing or attempting to bring any political or outside influence upon a superior authority by a government servant to further his own interests. The petitioner has not brought any external influence but he only represented before the departmental Minister. Learned counsel for the State invites the attention of the Court to the reply filed by the petitioner to the memo of charges acknowledging that he had made a mistake and violated procedures and sought apology for the same. In view of the fact that the petitioner in the departmental proceeding acknowledged that he had made a procedural mistake and the nature of the minor punishment imposed, this Court in the entirety is not persuaded to interfere in the matter. The application is dismissed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)