JUDGEMENT 1. This Appeal preferred under Clause-10 of the Letters Patent arises out of the judgment and order dated 18th November,2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 14565 of 2009. 2. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is heard and decided today. 3. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent, an Executive Engineer in the State of Bihar, for constructing three spans culvert, which was not adequate considering the width of the river. The culvert was found to be a wastage. The imputation of charge was contested by the respondent-delinquent. Against the charge-sheet the delinquent submitted his reply. After receipt of the reply a regular disciplinary proceeding was held against the delinquent. After holding the inquiry, the enquiry officer opined that the charges levelled against the delinquent were proved. The finding of guilt recorded by the enquiry officer was accepted by the disciplinary authority. By order dated 17th June, 2009 made by the State Government the delinquent was visited with the punishment of withholding of three increments with cumulative effect and recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/- in ten equal installments. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent delinquent preferred above CWJC No.14565 of 2009. 5. The learned Single Judge was, by his judgment and order dated 18th November, 2009, pleased to allow the writ petition and set aside the order of punishment and to direct the appellant-State of Bihar to hold the inquiry afresh. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the enquiry officer had failed to consider the materials on record and had not discussed any oral and documentary evidence led before him in support of the charge. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the State of Bihar has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General-XI, Mr. P.K. Verma has appeared, for the State of Bihar. He has assailed the judgment and order of the learned Singie Judge. He has submitted that unless the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer were perverse or based on no evidence, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority. 8. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Binod Kanth has appeared for the respondent. He has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 8. The learned Senior Advocate Mr. Binod Kanth has appeared for the respondent. He has supported the judgment of the learned Single Judge. He has taken us through the record of the inquiry proceeding and has relied upon the Bihar Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). He has submitted that the procedure laid down under Rule 17 of the Rules has been completely given a go-by. In the inquiry proceeding, the disciplinary authority did not produce any oral or documentary evidence in support of the imputation of charge made against the delinquent. 9. We have considered the record produced before us and the Rules. 10. The grievance has been made that the inquiry was initiated at the instance of the Lokayukt. We are of the opinion that the source of complaint is irrelevant. What matters is whether the respondent was guilty of the imputation of charge made against him. 11. As to the oral and documentary evidence, it may be noted that the charge against the respondent was that he constructed the culvert of three spans measuring 36 feet long whereas the requirement was of five spans measuring 56 feet long. Evidently, the delinquent had no authority to construct a five spans culvert. The factum of the culvert constructed by the respondent is not in dispute. The fact that it was three spans culvert was also not in dispute. In absence of any dispute to the charge, there was no question of proving the charge either by oral or documentary evidence. 12. The only question was whether technically three spans culvert was adequate at the place in question. The finding is that, the requirement was of five spans culvert. It being the expert opinion, this court will not interfere with the said finding. 13. We have also perused the reply submitted by the delinquent in answer to the charge-sheet (Annexure-10 at page 57 to the writ petition). We are of the opinion that the reply submitted by the delinquent was evasive. It was not his case that the culvert constructed by him was adequate. In our opinion, no further finding was required to be recorded by the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority was required to prove the charge either by oral or documentary evidence. 14. We are of the opinion that the reply submitted by the delinquent was evasive. It was not his case that the culvert constructed by him was adequate. In our opinion, no further finding was required to be recorded by the Enquiry Officer nor the disciplinary authority was required to prove the charge either by oral or documentary evidence. 14. The learned Single Judge has relied upon the letter dated 22nd March, 2005 written by the Deputy Secretary, Road Construction Department, addressed to the Deputy Secretary to Lokayukt, Office of Lokayukt, Bihar, Patna. The learned Single Judge has observed: "the Government authorities, in all fairness and reasonableness, should have also placed this letter before the enquiry officer and then leave the matter for decision to the enquiry officer." 15. We have found that the said letter dated 22nd March, 2005 was indeed part of the enquiry proceeding. A copy of the said letter was also furnished to the delinquent. The observation made by the learned Single Judge is, therefore, uncalled for. 16. No other contention is raised before us. We are of the opinion that the punishment imposed upon the delinquent requires to be confirmed. The order of remand made by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 18th November, 2009 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. The order of punishment dated 17th June, 2009 made by the State Government is upheld. CWJC No. 14565 of 2009 is dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost.