Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Heard Mr. N.C. Das, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants. The respondent/writ petitioner is represented by the learned counsel Mr. S.B. Prasad.

2. The respondent/writ petitioner was an LDA in the Inspectorate Office of the Board of Trustees of the ATPPF & PF Scheme (hereinafter referred to as ‘the employer’) and the disciplinary proceeding was drawn up against her with the charge memo dated 8.11.2004, where the following allegations were leveled against the delinquent :-

“You are found to have committed the following offences unbecoming of an employee of the Board and comprising impudent, incontinent acts of indiscipline and grave misconduct rendering you unsuitable to be retained in the services to serve public interest. The penalty aimed at is dismissal from services.

1. You are found to have still continuing immoral and illicit relationship with an officer of the Board namely Shri K.R. Nag, Addl. PF Commissioner (under suspension) although you were given disciplinary awards on past two occasions for such proven misconduct with strict caution for amending your character and conduct. You were retained in services on both the said occasions affording you fair and reasonable opportunity to amend yourself. But you have deliberately undermined the authority to continue with the same immoral and illicit relations with the person concerned, fully knowing that the later has his legally married wife with grown up children. Due to your arrogance you have deliberately thrown away all ethical values and become quite belligerent to defy the authority's cautions, issued at least on three past occasions, to held in yourself. You make Shri K.R. Nag, who goes to North Lakhimpur quite frequently to stay with you at your rented house. You have flouted your own written assurance of good conduct.

You are therefore charged with impudent moral turpitude and defiance of lawful authority both constituting grave misconduct.

You are therefore asked to submit your statement of defence if any, clearly stating as to why the penalty aimed at should not be awarded to you. You may also state if you desire to be heard in person. Your submission must reach this office within fifteen days time from the date of receipt of this charge sheet”.

3. The delinquent in her reply dated 30.11.2004 denied the charges and stated that there is only family relationship with K.R. Nag and it is not any illicit relationship, as has been alleged in the charge sheet. She also stated that if the relationship would have been immoral, the family members of K.R. Nag would have definitely objected but they never complained of any immoral relationship, although he is a married man with grown up children. Therefore this itself should allay all doubt about the nature of relationship.

4. Dissatisfied with the response of the delinquent, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and parallel inquiry proceeding was conducted against the writ petitioner and K.R. Nag, who was then serving as the Addl. P.F. Commissioner. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 08.02.2006 (page 51—72) found the charges to have been proved and accepting the finding, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement, through the impugned order dated 18.05.2006 (page 123).

5. The aggrieved delinquent then challenged the order of the disciplinary authority and in her WP(C) No.5586/2010, the delinquent firstly contended that on the basis of the specific allegation, no disciplinary proceeding should have been initiated and 2ndly it was also contended that the delinquent is penalized without adherence to the legal norms of departmental proceeding.

6. The learned Single Judge found that although Presenting Officer and Enquiry Officer were appointed, the case was never presented by the Presenting Officer and finding was reached on the basis of direct question of the witnesses by the Enquiry Officer. Moreover some of the witnesses were examined in the absence of the de