PRAMATH PATNAIK, J. - (1.) In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for quashing memo dated 08.09.2010, whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated under the provisions of Rule -55 of the Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1949.
(2.) The facts, in brief, is that pursuant to an advertisement dated 14.07.1980 inviting applications for the post of Dance Teacher, amongst others, the petitioner applied and after following due process of selection, she joined in her post in Girls Primary Teachers Education College, Ratu on 01.07.1981. It has been contended that on completion of ten years of continuous service, when the petitioner did not get the benefits of Time Bound promotion, she made representations before the respondents -authorites. But when the said request did not evoke any response, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing W.P. (S) No. 6964 of 2006. It has been submitted that in July, 2006, the then Principal, District Institute of Education and Training College, Ratu, being the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, purported to have declined the petitioner to mark attendance, hence, she could not get salary of 12 days in July, 2006. However, thereafter the petitioner was getting regular salary till December, 2006. Thereafter, again salary for the months of January and February, 2007 was withheld without communicating any reason. Again the petitioner started getting salary since March, 2007. Thereafter, all of a sudden, the salary of the petitioner was stopped in the month of April, 2007 by the then Principal, District Institute of Education and Training College, Ratu. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation before the Principal vide letter dated 28.05.2007, which was rejected vide letter dated 04.06.2007 by the Principal. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred a writ application, being W.P. (S) No. 4148 of 2007, to release and pay arrears of salary, which was disposed of vide order dated 28.04.2010 with a direction to the concerned authorities to release and pay forthwith the arrears of salary. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that thereafter, vide letter dated 07.06.2010, the respondent no. 3 while forwarding the copy of enquiry report submitted by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi dated 10.02.2010 asked the petitioner to submit her 2nd Show Cause. The petitioner on 19.07.2010 requested the respondents to provide her the copies of the entire documents relating to the proceeding as well as evidences collected therein in order to enable her to file an effective show cause. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the alleged enquiry has been shown to have been held but on bare perusal of the enquiry report, it would be evident that the same was held ex -parte and even the department failed to produce any evidence, much less any oral or documentary evidence in support of the alleged charges. Ultimately by impugned order dated 08.09.2010 the services of the petitioner has been terminated.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been terminated on the basis of report of the C.B.I, who has given its finding of 28 years stale charge, which is bad in law, as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.V. Mahadevan Vs. MD, T.N. Housing Board as reported in (2005) 6 SCC 636. Drawing the attention of the Court towards enquiry report, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is based on the C.B.I enquiry report wherein it has been stated that non -issuance of appointment letter from the issue register itself shows that the appointment of the petitioner is forged and fake, which is bad in law, as only non -issuance of appointment letter from issue register would not make the appointment of the petitioner fake and forged. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that from the enquiry report it would reveal that the enquiry was taken -up ex -parte and even the department failed to produce any evidence, much less any oral or documentary evidence in support of the alleged charges. It is well -settled principles of law that non - supply of foundational documents and non -examination of witnesses, vitiates the enquiry. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment rendered in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha as reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772.;