SANTOSH SAINI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA & ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working on the post of Supervisor under the Department of Women and Child Development, State of Haryana has preferred the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the enquiry proceedings as also the final order dated 10.03.2010 (Annexure P-14) passed by respondent No.1, whereby a penalty of stoppage of four increments without cumulative effect has been imposed upon her.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Supervisor in the Women and Child Development Department, State of Haryana on 02.06.1994. On 07.08.2007, the petitioner was served with a charge sheet under Rule 7 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987. The precise charges leveled against the petitioner were to the following effect:

(3.) The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge sheet.