JUDGEMENT 1. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing of the order dated 20.8.2001 contained in Letter No. 3/Misc.-5-538/99- 2285 Patna, awarding punishment in a departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner and for quashing of the order contained in Letter No. 3/Misc.-5-538/99- 1532 dated 4.4.2002, whereby appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment passed against the petitioner in a departmental proceeding has been affirmed. Petitioners prayer is for quashing of the order dated 20.8.2001 awarding punishment of censor, withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect and non-payment of salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance. 3. Impugned orders have been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that though in the departmental proceeding, charge framed against the petitioner was not found to be proved by the Enquiring Officer, still merely on suspicion, punishment has been awarded and the appellate authority without considering these matters has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the order passed in. the departmental proceeding. 4. Petitioner was posted as a Correspondence Clerk at Western Koshi Canal Sub-Division No. 2, Raj Nagar, Shivir, Khajauii in the district of Madhubani in the office of Executive Engineer. Petitioners case is that he had filed a written complaint before the Superintending Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Circle, Jainagar against the Executive Engineer since he was misusing the Government fund. The Executive Engineer became biased against the petitioner, on account of such written complaint filed by him. On 10.12.1999 some unknown persons assaulted the Executive Engineer Sri Umesh Pandey, near the railway station, while he was coming from his office. In connection with this incident, Khajauii P.S. Case No. 129 of 1999 was registered on the basis of fard-beyan of Umesh Pandey, against unknown. in the FIR specifically it has been stated by the informant that he could not identify the accused persons. However, he has suspected involvement of 2-3 persons behind this occurrence, though their names have not been disclosed. In the background of this incident and on a complain made by Executive Engineer a departmental proceeding was initiated in which single charge framed against the petitioner was that he alongwith some other persons made deadly assault on the Executive Engineer, Umesh Pandey, due to which both his hands were broken. In the background of this incident and on a complain made by Executive Engineer a departmental proceeding was initiated in which single charge framed against the petitioner was that he alongwith some other persons made deadly assault on the Executive Engineer, Umesh Pandey, due to which both his hands were broken. The petitioner submitted his show cause and the Enquiring Officer conducting departmental proceeding submitted the enquiry report, which indicated that the charge was not found to be proved as there was no evidence of direct involvement of the petitioner, but there is suspicion of his involvement in this incident. On the basis of such enquiry report, three minor punishments of censor, withholding of two increments with non-cumulative effect and non-payment of salary for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance, have been awarded to the petitioner. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed, in which it has been stated that petitioner was transferred from his present place of posting vide transfer order no. 2614 dated 21.12.1999. The transfer order had been issued by the Water Resources Department, Govt, of Bihar, Patna after receiving complaint of Umesh Pandey, Executive Engineer, Western Koshi Canal Division, Khajauli (Madhubani) that the work in this division cannot continue peacefully if petitioner is not transferred from his place. Petitioner was transferred from his present place of posting but he did not obey the order. For this reason, when Umesh Pandey was coming from his office, he was assaulted. In the FIR he did not disclose the name of petitioner due to fear, but subsequently he wrote against the petitioner to the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Water Resources Department, Govt, of Bihar, Patna and that was the reason for initiating departmental proceeding against the petitioner. The department took action in the departmental proceeding against the petitioner considering the petitioners indiscipline behavior towards his higher officer and non-compliance of transfer order dated 21.12.1999. The statement made in para 7 of the counter affidavit indicates that the order of punishment has been passed against the petitioner going beyond the charge framed against him and beyond the purview of the departmental proceeding. A single charge framed against the petitioner was that he made assault on Executive Engineer but the enquiry officer found that there is no direct evidence, so far this charge is concerned. A single charge framed against the petitioner was that he made assault on Executive Engineer but the enquiry officer found that there is no direct evidence, so far this charge is concerned. Mere suspicion could not have been a reason for awarding punishment, even minor punishment, unless the charge framed would have been proved. The counter affidavit makes it clear that it was not only the charge framed for which punishment was awarded to the petitioner in the departmental proceeding, but the reason for awarding punishment was petitioners insubordinations towards his superior authority and indisciplined behaviour. No such charge had been framed and no opportunity assigned to the petitioner, for these charges, before imposing three minor punishments. Before imposing punishment of non-payment of salary for the suspension period, petitioner was not issued any notice under Rule 97(3) of Bihar Service Code, which is essential for awarding such punishment. 6. In the given facts and circumstance of the case, the punishment order is not sustainable. The order contained in Letter No. 3/Misc.-5-538/99-2285 Patna dated 20.8.2001 (Annexure-6) as well as the order dated 4.4.2002 contained in Letter No. 3/Misc.-5-538/99-1532 (Annexure-9) passed by Under Secretary in the appeal preferred by the petitioner are quashed. 7. This application is allowed.