DEEPAK ROSHAN,J. - (1.) Heard through V.C.
(2.) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the respondent No.5; whereby the services of the husband of the petitioner was dismissed and also the appellate order dated 24.08.2004 passed by the respondent No.4 and order dated 28.01.2006 passed by respondent No.3; whereby the appeal and memorial preferred by the deceased-husband of the petitioner was also rejected.
(3.) Mr. Arshad Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of termination has been passed without following principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no notice was ever served to this petitioner. He further submits that neither any show cause notice nor the enquiry report was ever served to the petitioner's husband and as such the order suffers from procedural irregularity. Learned counsel further submits that even admitting the case to be true then also the quantum of punishment is highly disproportionate to the offence; as such the respondent-authorities should look into the matter and pass a fresh order on quantum of punishment. Learned counsel lastly submits that the respondents with malicious motive sent the notices at the home town though the husband of the petitioner was posted at Jamshedpur at the time of suspension; as such on the ground of procedural irregularity and quantum of punishment the impugned order of punishment as well as the subsequent orders should be quashed and the case may be remitted back to the respondents for passing a fresh order. ;