Sandeep Kumar, J.—This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:—

A. A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writs(s) / order(s)/direction(s) for quashing the followings:—

(i) The second inquiry report dated 22.08.2014, contained in Letter No. 3801, submitted in Department Proceeding No. 04 of 2013, holding that the charge leveled against the petitioner is proved;

(ii) The order dated 26.03.2018, contained in Memo No. 1851, passed by Additional Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna, by which petitioner has been dismissed from the service;

(iii) The order dated 13.09.2024, contained in Memo No.4513, passed by Joint Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Bihar, Patna, dismissing the review petition, filed by the petitioner, in compliance of the order dated 30.04.2024, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8257 of 2018.”

B. A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writs(s) / order(s) / direction(s) for the followings:—

(i) To hold that the orders under challenge, contained in Annexure-P18, P22 and P24 are non-nest in the eye of law,

(ii) To hold that orders under challenge are illegal and without jurisdiction;

(iii) To hold that orders under challenge are arbitrary and malicious one.

(iv) To hold that mere institution of criminal case which is under investigation for last more than 15 years, cannot be sole ground for major punishment.

(v) To hold that the petitioner is in continued service till her retirement and she is entitled to full salary and all consequential benefit with up to date penal interest.

(vi) To hold that orders under challenge are none speaking one.

(vii) To hold that orders under challenge are contrary to the evidence on record.”

2. It is the case of the petitioner that she was appointed as Child Development Project Officer (C.D.P.O) on 19.05.2008 and was posted at Bettiah and was further given an additional charge of CDPO, Gaunaha. However, one Indu Kumari, the then BDO, Gaunaha, who was holding the charge of C.D.P.O. Gaunaha, was not handing over the aforesaid charge to the petitioner, which was duly reported to higher authorities. After intervention of the District Magistrate and District Programme Officer, the petitioner was able to assume the aforesaid additional charge which caused serious annoyance to the then B.D.O.- Indu Kumari.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that the then B.D.O.- Indu Kumari had received a secret information regarding illegal collection of money being carried out at the instance of the petitioner, head assistant and other persons posted at the said office. Acting upon the said secret information, the then BDO reached the office of CDPO, Gaunaha on 25.06.2009 and found Rs.43,750/- along with three pages containing details of collection made from 67 Sevikas. It is further submitted that this incident was video-graphed also and based on the statement of the then BDO, Gaunaha P.S. Case No.23 of 2009 (Special Case No. 25 of 2009) was registered and the investigation of the case is still pending. Consequently, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 03.07.2009 and a departmental proceeding was initiated against her vide order dated 06.07.2009. The petitioner appeared in the departmental proceedings and submitted a detailed show cause reply.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that after considering all material facts, the enquiry report dated 18.04.2011 was submitting wherein the charges against the petitioner were not found to be true and accordingly, recommendation was made for revoking the suspension of the petitioner. However, differing with the findings of the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 20.01.2012 ordered for fresh departmental enquiry for the reason that the statement of witnesses i.e. Sevikas were not examined during the disciplinary proceeding. During the pendency of the reinquiry, the suspension of the petitioner was revoked and she was ordered to give her joining to the concerned office o