A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J.

1. The petitioner had joined the 3rd respondent College as a Typist cum clerk with effect from 7.7.1981. She was later promoted as U.D. Clerk and further as Head Clerk with effect from 1.12.1999. In the year 2000, the Direct Payment System was introduced in the College and with effect from 7.12.2009, the Kerala University of Health Sciences Act, 2010 came to govern the service conditions of teaching and non-teaching staff in the respondent College. In the writ petition, the petitioner challenges Ext.P22 order, whereby, a punishment was imposed on the petitioner pursuant to disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against her.

2. The facts in the writ petition would reveal that, on 24.8.2013, the petitioner had left office half an hour earlier without formally informing the Principal in charge of the College. In connection with the said incident, as also the other related charges, the petitioner was served with Exts.P4, P6, P7, P8 and P9 show cause notices, all between August and October, 2013, whereby, her explanation was sought on various incidents, which, according to the management, amounted to gross acts of indiscipline/ insubordination on the part of the petitioner. Although the petitioner replied to the said show cause notices, by Ext.P10 order dated 22.10.2013, she was placed under suspension. A perusal of Ext.P10 suspension order indicates that the management was not satisfied with the explanations submitted by the petitioner, and was of the opinion that the acts of misconduct/misbehavior, on the part of the petitioner, warranted disciplinary action. It was also intimated to the petitioner that, pending domestic enquiry, she was suspended from service with immediate effect, and that she could claim subsistence allowance as per the Rules in force. Thereafter, on 1.1.2014, Ext.P11 memo of charges was served on the petitioner, which contained seven charges. It is significant to note that along with the said memo of charges, there was no statement of allegations served separately on the petitioner. The petitioner, on receipt of the memo of charges, submitted her explanation indicating inter alia that the memo of charges that was issued to her was in violation of the statutory provisions that govern disciplinary proceedings in the respondent College. It was also her case that the entire process was vitiated by mala fides, and that the charge memo was issued in a pre-meditated manner. The respondent management, however, proceeded with the disciplinary proceedings, by appointing an enquiry officer. Although the petitioner challenged the order of suspension, as also the charge memo issued to her, on the ground that they were issued in violation of the statutory provision, through a writ petition W.P. (C) No. 10251 of 2014, the said writ petition was subsequently closed, leaving it open to the petitioner to challenge any orders that were passed in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against her. While closing the writ petition, this Court also left all issues open to be considered by the disciplinary authority in the disciplinary proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner. The Enquiry officer subsequently drew up an enquiry report, a copy of which was forwarded to the petitioner along with the show cause notice, by the management. The objections of the petitioner were called for and the petitioner was asked to show cause why the enquiry report should not be accepted and a punishment imposed on her. By Ext.P19 communication dated 26.10.2014, the petitioner preferred a detailed explanation against acceptance of the enquiry report. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority proceeded to pass Ext.P22 order dated 6.2.2015 imposing a punishment of "reduction in time scale by four stages for a period of one year having the effect of postponing future increments" to the petitioner. It is Ext.P22 order, imposing the said punishment, that the petitioner has impugned in the present writ