- (1.) Challenge in the instant writ petition is to the order dated 09.12.2009 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Commissioner and Director General, School Education, Haryana, whereby a punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect was inflicted upon the petitioner while she was serving as Principal, Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School, Jakhal Mandi, Fatehabad. Further challenge is to the order dated 22.07.2010 (Annexure P-8) passed by the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana in terms of which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment has been rejected. Brief facts that would require notice are that the petitioner was served with a charge memo dated 12.06.2009 (Annexure P-5) under Rule 8 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1987 formulating the following statement of allegations: "Smt. Santosh Saini has committed omissions given below while working on post of Principal Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School Jakhal Mandi (Fatehabad), from dated 23.08.2007 till date:-- That on dated 18.03.2009 Block Education Officers Jakhal conducted surprise inspection of Govt. Girls Senior Secondary School Jakhal Mandi (Fatehabad). During inspection Smt. Santosh Saini was found absent from school on dated 18.03.2009. In addition on 18.03.2009 evening a meeting, related to accounts of S.C. students, was called by District Education Officers Fatehabad. Smt. Santosh Saini was informed of telephonically many times by Block Education Officers Jakhal to participate in this meeting but she remaining absent from meeting. That non maintaining of headquarter at Fatehabad by Smt. Santosh Saini and to operate daily from Hissar and due to this faced problem in supplying information. Like this while remaining absent from school and defying order of Senior Officers and by leaving Headquarter daily have violated Employees (conduct) Rule 3, (I) (II) and (III)."
(2.) The petitioner responded to the charge memo by submitting a reply dated 25.06.2009. However, vide impugned order dated 09.12.2009, punishment of one increment without cumulative effect was imposed upon the petitioner. Petitioner preferred an appeal dated 21.01.2010 and the same has been rejected vide impugned order dated 22.07.2010 at Annexure P-8.
(3.) Counsel for the parties have been heard at length and the case file has been perused.;