1. The petitioner has prayed for quashing the order issued vide Memo No.3759 dated 19th April, 2012 (Annexure15), whereby punishment of censor has been awarded to the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for declaration that the enquiry report submitted against the petitioner in the year 2002, being not supported by any material on record, is wholly frivolous.

2. The said order has been challenged alleging that the same is wholly arbitrary, unjust and violative of principle of natural justice. The proceeding against the petitioner has been deliberately used for impeding legitimate promotional opportunity to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service.

3. This case has a chequered background.

4. The petitioner is a member of State Administrative Service. While she was posted as Block Development Officer in Bero Block, she had given certain advance to the beneficiaries/agencies for carrying out the project works in the said Block.

5. According to the petitioner, though the said advance was given on the direction of the higher authorities and she had no decisive role, a memo of charge was framed, alleging that she committed irregularity in disbursement of the said advance and the amount was not properly adjusted.

6. The memo of charge was issued to the petitioner by Memo No.4048 dated 17th April, 1996 and the Enquiry Officer was appointed.

7. Enquiry was initiated, but no material could be produced in support of the charges.

8. After prolonging the period without any progress, Enquiry officer was changed.

9. Second Enquiry Officer was appointed on 23rd September, 1997.

10. The said Enquiry Officer proceeded and asked the Department to produce documents/evidences in support of the charges. Nothing was produced nor anybody appeared to support the charges.

11. When a considerable time lapsed and no material or evidence could be produced, that Enquiry Officer was also changed.

12. Third Enquiry Officer was appointed by resolution dated 31st August, 1998. The Enquiry Officer asked the Presenting Officer to file his comments and produce evidences. Nothing was brought on record.

13. Ultimately, he submitted his sketchy report. Though there was no evidence or material to prove the charges, he concluded that the petitioner has been found guilty of the charges.

14. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner had challenged the entire proceeding in writ petition, being W.P.(S) No.1367 of 2003, before this Court.

15. The Disciplinary Authority then sought comments from the Presenting Officer. He clearly stated that no allegation could be substantiated against the petitioner.

16. The matter was placed before the Chief Secretary. He, after considering the facts and materials, recorded his finding dated 6th September, 2005 that no charge is established against the petitioner and entire incident is required to be reviewed.

17. Instead of reviewing the matter, second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner dated 29th August, 2006, asking her to reply as to why punishment should not be imposed for the charges.

18. The petitioner filed her reply dated 16th September, 2006, stating, inter alia, that the charges are malicious, frivolous and not based on any material on record. No charge has been proved by any evidence and the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer is not supported by any evidence and is perverse. The petitioner deserves to be exonerated from the charges.

19. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Jharkhand, after perusal of the entire record, endorsed the opinion of Chief Secretary on th January, 2007 adding that there appeared some technical error in discharge of duty by the petitioner and there was no element of guilt.

20. The matter was, thereafter, again placed before the Chief Secretary.

21. It is pertinent to mention that there was no addition or fresh material after the findings/observations of Presenting Officer; Principal Secretary, Department of Pers