Koshy, J.

The respondent in this Appeal who filed the Writ Petition while working as Section Officer, Fair Copy & Despatch (FC & D), in the officer of the Collage of Agriculture, Vellayani run by the appellant was placed under suspension pending enquiry with effect from March 12, 1998. She was charge sheeted for the following misconducts:-

“1. That you, Smt. S. Vasundara, Office superintendent (Higher Grade) (under suspension), College of Agriculture, Vellayani not only failed to discharge your official duties properly but when verbally instructed you misbehaved with the Dean in charge by using abusive language against him. Hence the following charges are leveled against you.

1. Coming to office late and leaving early on a regular basis.

2. Official misconduct and use of abusive language against the dean in charge on 6-3-1998.

3. Insubordination”.

2. Ext.P6 explanation was filed by her denying the allegations. After considering her explanation it was decided to conduct an enquiry. The enquiry officer conducted a detailed enquiry and several persons including senior officers were examined as witnesses and their statements were taken. She was also examined and her statements were recorded. Copies of statements were given to her. At the end of the enquiry she was asked whether she has got anything else to say and she answered in the negative. She did not raise any objection regarding the procedure of the enquiry. After the completion of the enquiry, enquiry report was submitted. Memo of charges, statements taken from the officers and the statement of the petitioner on 26-8-1998 & 7-12-1998 etc. are produced as (Ext.R1 (a) to (m). Annexure R1 (n) is the enquiry report. In the enquiry report charge Nos.2 and 3 were found to be proved by the enquiry officer. It was found by the enquiry officer as follows:

“1. Coming to the office late and leaving the office early on a regular basis.

This charge could not be proved as evidenced through the enquiry. There were no instances on record to prove any action taken by the authorities against this charge.

2. Official misconduct and use of abusive language against the Dean I/C on 6-3-1998.

The above said charges stand proved by the enquiry.

On 6-3-1998 Smt. Vasundhra rushed in to Dean’s room and questioned the Dean i/c in an angry and loud voice for scoring the attendance column for 4-3-1998 A/N and 5.3.1998 F/N. This amounts to misconduct by the officer. She used filthy and abusive language against the Dean i/c at that time. This also amounts to grave misconduct by the officer.

3. Insubordination

This charge also stands proved. Smt. Vasundhara left the office on 4-3-1998 without signing the attendance column for the A/N of that day. She absented herself on 5-3-1998 without prior sanction. She removed official records from the office unauthorisedly and produced photocopies of those records before the court of law. All the above facts amount to insubordination by the officer.

SUGGESTIONS

The charges of official misconduct and insubordination on the part of the officer are to be viewed seriously as it will affect the normal functioning of the office, secrecy of official business and morale of persons. Disciplinary action that may deem fit against the officer may be initiated so as stop further spread of such events in future”.

3. Considering the charge proved in the enquiry report instead of imposing major penalty a lenient view was taken and, she was awarded with the punishment of ‘censure’ by Ext.P10 proceedings. It was also stated that the suspension period will be regularized by granting eligible leave. This order was challenged before a learned Single Judge of this Court. The learned Single Judge found that natural justice was violated in the enquiry conducted and the punishment was so harsh especially she was placed under suspension for a long period. Therefore, Ext.P10 was set aside. The university was directed to treat her period of suspension as duty for all purposes and the entire service