JUDGMENT : Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for and is allowed to correct the designation of the respondent no. 4 as “Deputy General Manager (Personnel), Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd., Ranchi”. Office is directed to make necessary correction in the cause title of the writ petition. The present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the office order no. 685 dated 05.07.2006 (Annexure-16 to the writ petition) issued under the signature of the respondent no. 3 – Director Personnel, Jharkhand State Electricity Board (now Jharkhand Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd.), Dhurwa, Ranchi, wherein it has been mentioned that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the appellate authority – the Chairman of erstwhile Jharkhand State Electricity Board confirming the office order no. 172 dated 22.02.2003 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 3. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned respondents to pay the entire dues of travelling allowance to the petitioner which has not been paid to him despite the direction of this Court in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 585 of 2004, arising out of W.P.(S) No. 5950 of 2003 and order dated 11.02.2010 passed in C.M.P. No. 243 of 2006. The petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to refund an amount of Rs. 37,623/- (Rs.25,369/- + Rs.12,254/-) illegally deducted from Gratuity and arrear of pension calculated for the period from 01.08.2003 to 30.06.2005 in the form of recovery of excess pay drawn by him. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. It appears that vide office order no. 5823 dated 08.12.1999, a decision was taken by the Joint Secretary of erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board (BSEB) to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner appointing an enquiry officer. Pursuant to the said office order, a departmental enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer, who prepared the report dated 30.01.2002 with a finding that charges framed against the petitioner were proved. Subsequent to submission of the said enquiry report, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide office order no. 924 dated 30.11.2002 passed by the respondent no. 3 which was also replied by him on 09.01.2003. Subsequent to submission of the said enquiry report, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide office order no. 924 dated 30.11.2002 passed by the respondent no. 3 which was also replied by him on 09.01.2003. On consideration of the enquiry report as well as the reply to the second show cause notice submitted by the petitioner, the said disciplinary authority imposed punishment of censure as well as stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect against the petitioner vide officer order no. 172 dated 22.02.2003. 4. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Chairman, Jharkhand State Electricity Board on 12.05.2003, but no decision was taken on the same and due to the said reason, he preferred a writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 590 of 2006, which was disposed of vide order dated 12.02.2015 directing the respondent no. 3 to decide the appeal if not already decided, within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of that order and if the said appeal was already decided, copy of the said order would be communicated to the petitioner within the aforesaid period. 5. Accordingly, the respondent no. 4 vide letter no. 455 dated 10.04.2015 informed the petitioner that the appeal preferred by him was already rejected by the appellate authority as mentioned in the office order no. 685 dated 05.07.2006 and an information regarding the same was already given to him vide memo no. 994 dated 05.07.2006. The petitioner has also challenged the office order no. 685 dated 05.07.2006 in the present writ petition. 6. This Court does not find any infirmity in the enquiry report, as enquiry was properly conducted by the enquiry officer wherein the charges against the petitioner were found proved subsequent to which a second show cause notice was issued to him and the same was also responded by him. Thereafter, the impugned officer order no. 172 dated 22.02.2003 was issued by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment of censure as well as stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. 7. One of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no deliberate laches on the part of the petitioner in the matter of delayed issuance of pay-slip of the then Labour and Social Welfare Officer, Central Bihar Regional Electricity Board, Patna. Moreover, due to severe mental agony, he could not join the transferred post on time. One of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner is that there was no deliberate laches on the part of the petitioner in the matter of delayed issuance of pay-slip of the then Labour and Social Welfare Officer, Central Bihar Regional Electricity Board, Patna. Moreover, due to severe mental agony, he could not join the transferred post on time. The said argument cannot be appreciated by this Court as the same will amount to questioning the wisdom of the disciplinary authority in taking appropriate decision on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer as well as the reply of the charged employee. The writ court is primarily concerned with the aspect as to whether the departmental proceeding has been conducted against the employee in an unbiased manner following fair procedure. Since the petitioner has failed to make out any such case, there is no reason to interfere with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority. 8. So far as the petitioner’s prayer with respect to refund of Rs.37,623/- which is said to be illegally deducted from the Gratuity as well as arrear of pension is concerned, the same has been responded by the respondent no. 3 in paragraph-27 of the counter affidavit stating inter alia that an amount of Rs.37,623/- has been deducted from the Gratuity and arrear of pension on account of excess pay drawn by the petitioner during the service period. The petitioner has already submitted an undertaking/consent in pension-cum-Gratuity sanction form regarding recovery of excess pay drawn, if any, calculated during final sanction. The said amount has been deducted against excess pay drawn by the petitioner. The petitioner may raise question only if the pay drawn by him is correct and the recovery is anomalous/wrong. Hence, the prayer of the petitioner for refund of the said amount is not tenable in the eye of law. 9. It is not the case in which the aforesaid amount has been deducted from the Gratuity and arrear of pension without any fault on the part of the petitioner, rather the petitioner had already given an undertaking/consent in pension-cum-Gratuity sanction form that if any excess amount found to have been drawn by him while making the final calculation, the same can be deducted from the Gratuity and arrear of pension. Hence, on that issue also, this Court does not find any such illegality committed by the respondents. 10. The writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.