IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1007 of 2008 SUDHA KUMARI SINHA . Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS . ----------- 2/ 21/12/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 3.12.2001 by which punishment of stoppage of one increment with non-cumulative effect has been imposed and the order dated 19.9.2007 by which the appeal has been rejected as time barred, without consideration on merits. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner employed in the Department of Social Welfare on the post of lady supervisor was transferred from Patna to Barh which came to be departmentally stayed, subsequently revived etc. In the meantime, she had been transferred to Bhojpur. When she went to join there she was shuttled between Bhojpur and Barh when her joining was accepted in pursuance of the orders of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.4273/95. Therefore, it was not correct to state 2 that she abstained from joining duties not complying with the orders of transfer. It is next submitted that in the departmental proceeding initiated for alleged unauthorized absence the enquiry officer has not disbelieved her defence with regard to the orders on the writ petition and the maternity leave sought by her compounded with physical child birth. These are issues on which she could have satisfied the disciplinary authority, if before imposing punishment a second show cause notice had been given along with a copy of the enquiry report. The petitioner has therefore been prejudiced which has been compounded by the dismissal of an appeal, not on merits, but on grounds of limitation which is also factually incorrect reckoned from the date of filing of the appeal. Learned counsel for the State from the order of punishment finds it difficult to substantiate that a copy of the enquiry report was given to the petitioner before the order of 3 punishment was passed. From the extract of the enquiry report quoted in the final order of punishment it appears that the enquiry officer has not disbelieved her defence when it observed that she could have given her joining and then submitted the necessary applications. These are matters for the disciplinary authority to consider appropriately based on what discussions the enquiry report may contain. The order of the appellate authority dated 19.9.2007 and the order of punishment dated 3.2.2001 are accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the disciplinary authority to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of the enquiry report in accordance with the discussion as aforesaid and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order with all further remedy available to the petitioner in accordance with law. The writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated. KC/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)