JUDGMENT : B.K. Patra, J. - The Petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Deputy Director of Food Production in 1943. In due course he was promoted as Head Clerk, and round about the year 1958 he was serving under the Biochemist. In the year 1960, the audit report for the period the Petitioner was under the Biochemist was published and it was found that a sum of Rs. 60/- had been misappropriated by the Petitioner. Doubtless the Petitioner deposited this amount immediately but for this delinquency a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in 1961. The matter was enquired into, and at the conclusion of the enquiry he was found guilty, and by an order dated 3-3-1962 passed by the Director of Agriculture, the following punishments imposed upon him: (1) His promotion was stopped for 5 years; (2) His increment was stopped for 6 years; and (3) He was to pay Rs. 100/-, the amount he misappropriated. 2. The Petitioner made some representations to his departmental authorities, and being unsuccessful he has filed this writ application praying for an order quashing the order of punishment passed against him (Annexure-1) on the grounds firstly that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the departmental proceeding, and secondly that the order imposing upon him multiple punishments is bad in law. 3. The State in its counter inter alia contended that all reasonable opportunities had been given to the Petitioner to defend himself in the departmental proceeding; that he was found guilty by the enquiring officer, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority and that the rules do not prohibit imposition of one or more of the penalties enumerated in Annexure-1. 4. At the time of hearing of this application Mr. R. Mohanty learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, did riot press his contention based on the averment that reasonable opportunity had not been afforded to the Petitioner. He confined his arguments to the second ground namely that imposition upon the Petitioner of the three penalties enumerated above is bad in law. 5. By the time the disciplinary proceeding took place and the punishments were imposed on the Petitioner, the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 were in force. Rule 49 of these Rules corresponds to Rule 13 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962. 5. By the time the disciplinary proceeding took place and the punishments were imposed on the Petitioner, the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930 were in force. Rule 49 of these Rules corresponds to Rule 13 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962. Rule 13 enumerates the several penalties which, for good and sufficient reasons, can be imposed on a Government servant. All the three punishments imposed on the Petitioner come within the preview of Rule 13. There is nothing in Rule 13 to indicate that in any given case only one of the penalties enumerated in Rule 13 can be imposed. This precise question came up for consideration before a Bench of this Court in Bairagi Charan Bisoi Vs. State of Orissa and Others, and it has been held that it is open to a punishing authority to impose anyone or more of the penalties enumerated in Rule 13. In that case the penalties imposed upon the delinquent were withholding of increments and withholding of promotion, almost, the same penalties as are imposed on the present Petitioner and the impugned order in that case was upheld. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention now advanced by Mr. Mohanty. 6. In the result, this application fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances we make no order as to costs. S. Acharya J. 7. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed