By the Court.—Heard Shri Asit Kumar Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

2. Causes of action in this writ petition are so mixed up that ordinarily the instant writ petition would have been dismissed for misjoinder of cause of action, however, considering the fact that the writ petition is pending since the year 2003 and a counter-affidavit not only to the writ petition but to the amended writ petition has also been filed by the State-respondents, the Court proceeds to decide the writ petition on its merit.

3. In fact, challenge in this writ petition was initially made to the punishment orders and consequential orders passed in respect of two departmental proceedings, which the petitioner was subjected to. The first departmental proceedings was initiated against the petitioner by issuing a charge-sheet dated 3.9.1998 pertaining to the alleged irregularities committed by the petitioner during her service period in the years 1992-1993 and 1995-1998. The said departmental proceedings culminated in the punishment order dated 24.5.2003, whereby the punishment of recovery of Rs. 3.48 lakh from the petitioner has been imposed, the petitioner’s integrity for the years 1992-93, 1995-96, 1996-97 and 1997-98 has not been certified and she has been censured. In pursuance of the punishment order dated 24.5.2003, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 4.7.2003 requiring her to explain as to why recovery of the amount of Rs. 3.48 lakh cannot be made. The petitioner appears to have submitted her reply to the show-cause notice. The State Government not being satisfied with the said reply, passed an order on 6.11.2003 directing therein to make recovery of the aforesaid amount and to recover the same from her salary every month. The Director, Mahila Evam Bal Vikas Seva Evam Pushtahar, U.P. passed consequential order on 21.11.2003 directing recovery of a sum of Rs. 3000/- per month from the salary of the petitioner.

4. Thus, these are the three orders i.e. the order dated 24.5.2003, the order dated 6.11.2003 and the order dated 21.11.2003, which have emanated from the departmental proceedings drawn against the petitioner by serving a charge-sheet dated 3.9.1998. All these orders are under challenge herein.

5. The second departmental proceeding was instituted against the petitioner by placing her under suspension on 24.4.1999 and the charges in this departmental proceedings pertained to the year 1998-99. The said order resulted in punishment order dated 29.5.2001, whereby the petitioner was inflicted with the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect and the censure entry for the year 1998-99. The petitioner appears to have represented against the punishment order dated 29.5.2001 and the representation was rejected on 6.6.2002. However, during the pendency of this writ petition, the punishment order dated 29.5.2001 and the order dated 6.6.2002 rejecting the petitioner’s representation against the said punishment dated 6.6.2002 have been cancelled by the appropriate authority on 16.9.2010. Though the challenge to the said orders dated 29.5.2001 and 6.6.2002 have also been made in this writ petition, however, since these two orders were cancelled on 16.9.2010, hence the writ petition does not survive in respect of the prayers made herein for quashing the orders dated 29.5.2001 and 6.6.2002.

6. It is not only that the punishment orders passed in the aforesaid departmental proceedings and the consequential orders passed thereon have been challenged in this writ petition but the petitioner has also put a challenge to the order dated 19.7.1997, whereby the petitioner was censured by the Director, the order dated 16.12.1999, whereby the petitioner was given warning and also to the order dated 15.2.2003, whereby the petitioner was given adverse entry for the year 2