Judgment :- 1. The petitioner was appointed to the post of Child Welfare Organiser on a consolidated salary of Rs.173/-per month on 29.08.1982. The Hon'ble Minister of Welfare visited the centre, where the petitioner was working and inspected the records. At the time of visit, of the Hon'ble Minister, all the children had already left, after taking their noon meal. 2. The Hon'ble Minister reported against the petitioner, and the respondents, on the basis of that report, and without holding any enquiry or issuing show cause notice to petitioner, ordered her dismissal from service. 3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the order of dismissal filed W.P.No.4976 of 1992. The writ petition was allowed on 16.09.1999 and the case was remitted back to the District Child Development Project Officer to proceed afresh against the petitioner in accordance with the rules. 4. The petitioner was thereafter issued charge memo dated 07.02.2000. In the enquiry proceedings, inspite of request of the petitioner, she was not even given a copy of the complaint or any other document. However, pending enquiry, the petitioner was reinstated in service. 5. The competent authority thereafter passed the impugned order, allowing the petitioner to continue in service, in pursuance to her reinstatement, by treating the dismissal period, as the punishment period. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order cannot be sustained, as the punishment imposed is unknown to service jurisprudence, nor it is one of the punishment provided under the rules either by way of major punishment or minor punishment. 7. It is also contention of learned counsel for the petitioner, that once the order of dismissal was set aside by this Court, it was not open to the respondents to consider the dismissal period as the punishment period, as there is no order of dismissal in view of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.4976 of 1992. 8. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned order is also a non speaking order, as it does not give any reason, and that the proceedings conducted against the petitioner, were also in violation of principle of natural justice, as no documents were supplied to petitioner, nor she was served with the enquiry report, so as to submit objections to enquiry report, if any. 9. 9. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent, that the impugned order of punishing authority, holding the period of dismissal to be the order of punishment, is not supported by any rules, but at the same time, the impugned order also imposes punishment of recovery of article, lost by the petitioner, deserves to be upheld. 10. On consideration, I find that this writ petition deserves to succeed. It is conceded by learned Additional Government Pleader, the punishment of dismissal period to be the order of punishment cannot be sustained in law, as there is no provision under Rules to impose such punishment. The impugned order therefore on the face of it is totally arbitrary and outcome of non application of mind, thus, cannot be sustained in law. 11. The order of recovery against the petitioner also cannot be sustained, firstly there is no reason disclosed for coming to this conclusion, nor the order discloses as to what was the missing article, for which the petitioner was charged. As already observed above, the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in violation of principle of natural justice and the impugned order was passed without supplying copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order, qua recovery also cannot be sustained. 12. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. 13. No costs.q