NIRMALA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE on behalf of the respondents has been accepted by the learned Chief Standing Counsel. With the consent of the parties' counsel we decide the writ petition at the admission stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though proper explanation was given by her with respect to the alleged charges and that she never left the headquarters but even then charge of the Project Director has been ordered to be taken away vide order dated 7.5.09 by the District Magistrate. His further submission is that such a punishment is not provided under the Rules and, therefore, on such a vague allegation made in the order, the said order could not have been passed. Counsel for the respondent State Smt. Aruna Misra says that notices were issued to the petitioner and thereafter this order has been passed. We are satisfied that even if any notice was issued, that would not give any right to the District Magistrate to take away the charge of Project Director, as no such punishment could be awarded under the Rules. In case a Government servant/public servant is found guilty of any charge of misconduct, the normal procedure is to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Under the circumstances, we quash the orders dated 7.5.09 and 3.2.09. The petitioner shall be paid her salary including the arrears thereof. The writ petition is allowed. However, this order would not come in the way of the respondents, if they intend to proceed in accordance with law and if there is any material, on the basis of which disciplinary proceedings can be initiated.