were framed on 05.11.2021, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation, contending that he was merely a subordinate officer and not the competent authority to issue work orders or execute lease deeds. He further states that his superior officer, who was similarly placed, was initially placed under suspension but was subsequently reinstated on the ground that no loss had been caused. It is submitted that, pursuant to the explanation submitted by the petitioner, an enquiry was conducted and the enquiry officer, by report dated 25.10.2023, concluded that the petitioner had not deviated from the departmental instructions and recommended dropping of the proceedings. Notwithstanding the said findings, the petitioner was continued under prolonged suspension and was reinstated only on 09.02.2023 pending enquiry. Subsequently, by proceedings dated 10.01.2024, the respondent No.2 imposed a minor penalty of censure without assigning proper reasons and without passing any orders with regard to the treatment of the suspension period, payment of back wages, or the effect on increments. It is submitted that, though he did not challenge the imposition of the minor penalty, he made representations seeking regularization of the suspension period and payment of full salary and increments, particularly in view of the finding that no loss was caused to the exchequer. In these circumstances, the petitioner contends that the continued refusal of the respondents to regularize the period of suspension is arbitrary and contrary to Rule 54-B of the Fundamental Rules and Subsidiary Rules, which mandates passing of specific orders regarding
