Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of the order dated 09.03.2010 issued by respondent No. 4 removing him from services and for quashing of order dated 29.04.2010 passed by the appellate authority (respondent No. 3), confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and also for quashing of the order dated 14.07.2010 issued by the respondent No. 2, being the revision order upholding the order passed by the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority.
(2.) The facts, as averred in the writ application, in a nutshell is that while the petitioner continuing as constable in CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad, the petitioner was served with charge sheet on 22.09.2009 with the following charges of misconduct: - (i) That she had maintained illicit relationship with Constable H.S. Sandhu, a Constable, CISF Unit, BCCL, Dhanbad. (ii) That she called the aforesaid H.S. Sandhu to her quarter in the night of 25.08.2009 and 26.08.2009 un -authorizedly. (iii) That she was habituated to drink liquor in Barrack premises. (iv) That she deserted the Unit from 03.09.2009 to 09.09.2009 without obtaining permission from any authority and submitted joining on 10.09.2009. In pursuance to the charge, the petitioner submitted her reply which was not considered and an enquiry was ordered to conduct against her. After conclusion of the enquiry, the inquiry officer held charge No. 1 and 3 were not proved against the petitioner though, charge Nos. 2 and 4 were proved against the petitioner as per enquiry report, vide annexure -1 to the writ petition. The disciplinary authority did not agree with the finding of the inquiry officer with regard to exoneration of the petitioner from charge Nos. 1 and 3, and asked the petitioner to show cause as to why it not be held that the charges on all counts are proved against her and held the petitioner guilty of all the four counts and directed for removal from services and further held that she would not be entitled to anything more than already paid to her during suspension, vide annexure -2 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority who dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of punishment vide order dated 29.04.2010 vide annexure -3 to the writ petition. Against the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed revision before the respondent No. 2 who vide order dated 14.07.2010 dismissed the revision vide annexure -4 to the writ petition.
(3.) Being aggrieved by the impugned order of removal from services vide annexure -2 to the writ petition and the order of the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority vide annexures -3 and 4 to the writ petition, the petitioner having no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy has approached this Court by invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of the grievances.;