JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. 1. In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing memo dated 22.08.2014 by which two increments of the petitioner has been stopped and for direction upon the respondents not to give effect memo dated 22.08.2014. 2. The facts, as delineated in the writ application, in brief is that the petitioner while posted as B.D.O in Simdega block, it is alleged that an amount of Rs. 10,23,600/- was sanctioned for digging 12 ponds @ 85,300/-. The allegation against the petitioner is that though the petitioner being B.D.O had withdrawn the said amount but the Additional Collector in his investigation did not find any record of those 12 ponds. Basing on these allegation, the petitioner was placed under suspension and show cause was served upon him, to which, he replied vide letter dated 21.03.2006. Thereafter, the departmental proceeding was set in motion which led to passing of impugned order of punishment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in fact, the amount in question i.e. fund under the heading 2245 (Disaster Management) was diverted to another head (Indira Awas) and relating documents and registers were taken away by the then Nazir, Biju Baraik, who remain absconded, hence, the petitioner lodged F.I.R being Simdega P.S. Case No. 40 of 2005 against him. It has further been submitted that considering the reply and documents available on record, the Enquiry Officer has found no ground to prove the charges against the petitioner regarding embezzlement of government money rather noted that it is a case of some negligence and further opined that petitioner is not liable for embezzlement of government money in question till the submission of charge-sheet against said Biju Baraik in Simdega P.S. Case No. 40 of 2005 and accordingly said departmental proceeding was kept in abeyance, as evident from letter dated 09.12.2009 (Annexure 5). But all of a sudden, the petitioner was supplied letter dated 11.04.2014 by which the petitioner was directed to submit second show cause reply, to which, the petitioner replied, but without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order of punishment was slapped upon the petitioner. But all of a sudden, the petitioner was supplied letter dated 11.04.2014 by which the petitioner was directed to submit second show cause reply, to which, the petitioner replied, but without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order of punishment was slapped upon the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the disciplinary authority has not given any reason for difference/disagreement with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, which renders the impugned order bad in law as per decision enunciated in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors Vs. Kunj Behari Misra as reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 . 4. As against this, learned counsel for the State submits that for the alleged embezzlement of money, one F.I.R. being Simdega P.S. Case No. 67 of 2008, under Sections 419, 420, 409, 467, 471, 477 and 120 B of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against the petitioner also, in which charge-sheet was submitted finding the case against the petitioner to be true. Besides, in the departmental proceeding, the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of not maintaining proper record of the said amount, hence, he was found guilty of negligence in proper maintenance of records of the sanctioned amount, which resulted in embezzlement and misappropriation of the public money. Basing, on aforesaid fact, the impugned punishment of withholding of two increments has been awarded against the petitioner, which does not warrant interference by this Court. 5. Admittedly, in the enquiry, the enquiry officer has given finding to the effect that it is difficult to say that embezzlement of the amount in question was done by the delinquent officer as Sri Biju Baraik, Nazir is found absconded from the block since 30.04.2005 with the relevant register and a criminal case to this effect, being Simdega P.S. Case No. 40 of 2005 has also been lodged against said Biju Baraik and further opined that till charge-sheet is not filed in the criminal case against the Sri Baraik, the delinquent officer cannot be held guilty of the charges. In the year 2012, charge-sheet was submitted against said Nazir- Sri Baraik, showing him to be absconder. 6. In the year 2012, charge-sheet was submitted against said Nazir- Sri Baraik, showing him to be absconder. 6. From the documents available on record, it further appears for the alleged embezzlement of fund one criminal case, being Simdega P.S. Case No. 67 of 2008, was also lodged against the petitioner, in which, charge-sheet has been submitted against the petitioner finding the case to be true against him under the relevant Sections of Indian Penal Code. 7. Be that as it may be, the facts remains that in the departmental proceeding the enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty of negligence in maintaining proper record of the said amount, which resulted in embezzlement and misappropriation of the public money. Basing on this enquiry report, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect, which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, does not appear to be shockingly disproportionate so as to prick the conscience of the court and appears to be in commensurate with the proved charges, hence, on the ground of doctrine of proportionality also the impugned order of punishment does not need interference. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Petition dismissed