UMA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A charge -sheet containing three distinct charges was issued to the petitioner. Subsequent thereto, according to the petitioner, straightway a punishment order was issued by the disciplinary authority. This order dated 7th May, 1997 was assailed in the instant writ petition. On the last occasion, the records of the disciplinary proceeding was produced in Court. It was at that stage admitted that the enquiry report has not been submitted to the petitioner. In those circumstances, as duty bound, I directed the State to file a supplementary affidavit enclosing therewith the enquiry report with permission to the writ petitioner to file an affidavit indicating therein what prejudice she suffered for non -supply of the enquiry report before the punishment order was passed. No such affidavit has been filed.

(2.) THE learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that in this case there was no enquiry, in fact, and the matter was proceeded on the basis of an admission of the petitioner contained in her letter, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure -G to the counter affidavit. In this letter, the petitioner has dealt with one of the charges and not the other two. The charge which has been dealt with in that letter was that though there is no provision to buy Bournvita, Horlicks etc., a sum of Rs. 35,091/ - was shown on papers to have been spent for purchase of the same. In the letter, being Annexure -G, the petitioner has admitted that a sum of Rs. 35,091/ - was spent on account of Bournvita, Horlicks etc. but she did not agree that there was no provision for purchase of the same.

(3.) IN those circumstances, the impugned order of punishment is quashed with liberty to the disciplinary authority to proceed de novo with the disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the subject chargesheet.