Judgment 1. All things considered. After having examined the record of the writ petition in detail and after having received submission on the writ petition also in detail, this court has come to the conclusion that the learned judge has committed no error in not granting any relief on the petition. 2. The fact of the matter is that if the record is to be seen threadbare, the petitioner has got off too lightly with the punishment which has been awarded. Firstly, there is the technicality of the matter for any proceeding, which was taken out under rule 55 of Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1930. Of penalty awarded under rule 45 there is a clear cut provision of appeal under rule 56. Instead of resorting to this appeal, the petitioner-appellant straightaway put in his petition at the High Court. 3. The picture becomes clearer after the State filed the counter affidavit. While the petitioner-appellant was in the rank of an Assistant Engineer, he started making direct allegations against an Honble Minister of conspiracy and embezzlement and, in effect, sharing the loot out of the government funds etc. 4. The Court is not going into the depth of the allegations but unsolicited if the petitioner-appellant was making those allegations then he ought to have brought this matter to the notice of his superior officers, if any embezzlement was noticed by him as may have been done by his colleagues. This the petitioner-appellant did not do. 5. Of an incident that the petitioner- appellant barged into the chamber of his superior officer and may have used unparliamentary language is the beginning of the departmental proceedings upon him. While the petitioner-appellant was suspended he was attached to the office in Ranchi. But the petitioner desired his correspondence with the Head Office on another address at Patna, that is, care of his wife. This in itself was subversive to discipline. If the petitioner-appellant was attached to a station, that is, Ranchi, the petitioner-appellant had no business to give a counter proposal to the department that further correspondence should be done with him at Patna. 6. The petitioner-appellant delayed the process of the inquiry. So much so that notice upon him had to be served virtually by substituted service, that is, by publication in a newspaper. 6. The petitioner-appellant delayed the process of the inquiry. So much so that notice upon him had to be served virtually by substituted service, that is, by publication in a newspaper. This in itself shows that the petitioner would not conform to any discipline and was only portraying to the department that he was a rebel. 7. Of any remark the petitioner-appellant may have received on his service dossier is a situation of his own making. In fact, the punishment ought to have been more. 8. Dismissed.