S. Chandrashekhar, J. - (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: I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that the memorandum of charge was issued to the petitioner consisting of five articles of charges. The petitioner had denied the charges. The enquiry officer, thereafter, had inquired into the charges and on considering the facts, materials and evidences on record, had found the charges not proved. The disciplinary authority, thereafter, without informing the reason for disagreement with the finding of the enquiry authority and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to file representation against the said finding, has passed the impugned order awarding punishment of dismissal. The disciplinary authority has tried to justify his conclusion by adding one new charge in his order after competition of the proceeding/enquiry. The said charge is clearly mentioned in Paragraph 12 of the impugned order with the clear note that the same was not served on the delinquent. The said conclusion of the disciplinary authority is based on the said consideration though the charge added in the order of punishment was never served on the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to meet the same. The said conclusion of the disciplinary authority is, thus, tainted with arbitrariness and illegality and the same is violative of the principles of natural justice and renders the impugned order nullity. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.6.2008 (Annexure -11) passed by the Commissioner, Civil Defence, Jharkhand, Ranchi is quashed. The matter is remitted to the disciplinary authority to proceed with the same afresh from the stage of receipt of the enquiry report.
(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: ......In the opinion of this Court, respondent No. 2 has exceeded his jurisdiction by withholding PPF, G.P.F., Leave Encashment and other benefits over and above the actual pension. Therefore, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction that the petitioner shall be paid all the retiral benefits except the actual pension, payment of which shall be subject to the final outcome of the disciplinary proceeding. Disciplinary proceedings shall be concluded in any case on or before 31.12.2012. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.
(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.;