JUDGMENT : S. N. Pathak, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the Resolution No. 485 dated 29.03.2017, by which punishment of entry with warning in annual confidential character, posting for two years in non-working and nothing shall be paid during suspension period except subsistence allowance has been passed. The petitioner has also challenged the appellate order contained in Letter No. 832 dated 26.05.2017 affirming the punishment order dated 29.03.2017. Prayer has also been made to hold and declare the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner is vitiated on account of non-compliance of procedural safeguards enshrined in service Rules. 2. The petitioner was initially appointed on 3.2.1996 as unskilled Khalasi and later on, he was promoted to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil). A complaint was received in Centralized Public Grievances Redressal and Monitoring System regarding tender work on the basis of forged affidavit in the respondent-Company for several years. On the basis of prime facie evidence against the petitioner in the aforesaid complaint, he was put under suspension vide order dated 18.06.2015. Thereafter, memo of charge was drawn against the petitioner on 2.9.2015 with the allegation that the petitioner was found involved in getting bribe in the name of General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer and other higher officers of the respondent-Company for settling the contract work to the contractors. It was also alleged that the petitioner used to demand 8% amount in advance of tender cost. The petitioner submitted his reply denying and disputing each and every charges levelled against him. After examining the witnesses and on the basis of documentary evidence, the enquiry officer found the charge no. 1 proved, whereas, other charges were not found to be true. The enquiry report was submitted by the enquiry officer on 4.2.2016. Second show cause notice was issued on 31.5.2016 to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and the petitioner replied the same also. However, the petitioner was inflicted three punishments, as stated above. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 26.5.2017. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of censure dated 29.03.2017 has lost its effect by now. The petitioner is aggrieved only with respect to punishment of withholding of full salary and allowance during the period of suspension. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed on 26.5.2017. Hence, this writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of censure dated 29.03.2017 has lost its effect by now. The petitioner is aggrieved only with respect to punishment of withholding of full salary and allowance during the period of suspension. Learned counsel submits that charge no.1, which is said to be proved against the petitioner is nothing but a vague charge. It is stated that the petitioner was involved in settling the tender work in the name of higher officers by taking bribe. Learned counsel submits that on the vague charge, no punishment can be inflicted upon the employee. 4. On the other hand learned counsel for the Respondent-JUVNL argues that three punishments which were inflicted, are as follows:- (i). Entry with warning in annual confidential characteristics. (ii). Posting in non-working category in next two years. (iii). During the period of suspension, nothing other subsistence allowance will be payable. 5. Learned counsel submits that as far as punishment nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the same have lost its effect. It has been submitted regarding punishment no. 3 that since the petitioner has not been fully exonerated from the charges, he is not entitled for full salary and allowance during the suspension period, except subsistence allowance, which has already been paid to him. 6. Having gone through the rival submissions of the parties across the Bar, this Court is of the view that admittedly all the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. However, it appears from the inquiry report that charge No.1 was proved and two charges remained unproved, though charge nos. 2 and 3 are said to be grave in nature. As far as charge no. 1 is concerned, the only allegation against the petitioner is that he demanded money but no transactions have been proved by any of the witnesses. Petitioner was appointed in the year February 1996 and has almost rendered 28 to 30 years of services which remained unblemished, save and except charge no. 1. 7. In totality, this Court is of the view that three charges levelled against the petitioner, which are minor in nature, are not tenable in the eyes of law and, as such, the order of punishment nos. 1 and 2 are not tenable. 1. 7. In totality, this Court is of the view that three charges levelled against the petitioner, which are minor in nature, are not tenable in the eyes of law and, as such, the order of punishment nos. 1 and 2 are not tenable. As such, the part of the impugned order contained in resolution No. 485 dated 29.03.2017, as also appellate order dated 26.05.2017, with respect to punishment nos. 1 and 2 only, are fit to be quashed and set aside and as such, both the orders are quashed and set aside. However, the fact remains that the petitioner has not been fully exonerated from the charges, he is not entitled for full pay and allowance during the suspension period, other than subsistence allowance. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.