MANJUSHREE PAUL Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the dismissal order dated 29.12.2012, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was appointed as Clerk -cum -Typist on 04.12.1971. She was subsequently promoted to the post of Anudeshak (Instructor) by order dated 15.07.2002. She applied for casual leave for two days and she proceeded on leave on 26.03.2007. By order dated 28.03.2007 the petitioner was put under suspension. A charge -sheet was served to the petitioner on 16.05.2007 on various allegations of unauthorized absence, illegal withdrawal of salary, financial irregularity, disobedience etc. An enquiry was conducted into the matter and the enquiry report was submitted on 22.05.2008. The Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal on 19.06.2008 which was challenged by the petitioner by filing W.P. (S) No. 3375 of 2008. This Court by order dated 25.04.2012 quashed the order of dismissal dated 19.06.2008 and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority in the following terms:

(2.) AFTER remand, the impugned order dated 29.12.2012 was passed by the respondent No. 2 which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present proceeding. In the meantime, the respondent No. 2 by order dated 29.06.2012 withheld the retiral benefits of the petitioner till the conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 4150 of 2012 which was allowed by order dated 31.08.2012 holding thus:

(3.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that inspite of order passed by this Court on 25.04.2012 neither a copy of the enquiry report was served to the petitioner nor a second show -cause notice was issued and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. He has further submitted that on earlier occasions this Court held that the respondent No. 2 passed orders which were illegal and without jurisdiction nonetheless, the respondent No. 2 has passed the impugned order ignoring the mandate of this Court and therefore, his conduct warrants censure.