MONIKA KACHHAP Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the State.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in an inquiry when it was found that the petitioner had gone on leave for 134 days unauthorizedly, salary of the petitioner for 134 days was withheld and that apart, increment for six months was also ordered to be withheld. Since the said orders are quite illegal, the petitioner has challenged those orders in this writ application in stead of preferring any appeal, as the order of punishment can only be passed in a regular departmental proceeding which has never been undertaken by the authority whereas only by holding some kind of enquiry even without giving opportunity to the petitioner, the order has been passed.

(3.) However, leaned counsel appearing for the State submits that the petitioner while submitting his explanation before the enquiry officer made oral statement before him that whatever statements have been made in the show cause that should be treated as evidence and in that view of the matter, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality.