GEETIKA NIGAM Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 7-5-99 (Annex. P-l 0), whereby the disciplinary authority passed the order dismissing the petitioner from service as a measure of punishment. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 22-4-2000 (Annexure P-l3), whereby appeal/review preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed,

(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present petition are that a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner by order dated 11-3-97; containing four charges, which are as follows:-

(3.) PETITIONER was asked to submit her written statement of defence within 15 days from the date of receipt of the charge-sheet. In response thereto, petitioner, vide letter dated 10-5-97 demanded photocopies of the documents, which, in her opinion, were necessary to submit her defence. This request of the petitioner was acceded to and the documents were sent to her by letter dated 27-5-97 with a further direction to her to submit her written statement of defence within 10 days. However, she did not submit any reply in response to the charge-sheet. Later on, by order dated 16-8-97 Shri R. K. Banjhal, Superintending Engineer was appointed as Enquiry Officer to enquire into the allegations made against the petitioner. Said communication WE sent to the petitioner by registered post by letter dated 23-8-97, which was received back undelivered. The Enquiry Officer also intimated to the M. P. Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) that the petitioner did not attend the enquiry proceeding on the date fixed for hearing and all the letters issued to her by the Enquiry Officer were received back undelivered. Ultimately the Enquiry Officer got the notice published in daily newspapers "dainik Bhaskar", Bhopal, "dainik Nai Duniya ", Bhopal and "nav Bharat", Bhopal and by the said notice, she was directed to attend the enquiry proceeding on 28th October, 1997. All these efforts made by the Enquiry Officer to acquaint the petitioner about the enquiry being conducted by him, did not yield any result and the petitioner did not participate in the enquiry. Left with no option, the Enquiry Officer proceeded to conduct enquiry ex pane and submitted his findings by letter dated 5-2-98 holding the petitioner guilty of the charges.