JUDGMENT S. PANDA, J. - The petitioner in this writ petition has assailed the order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.2180 of 2014 as the same is illegal, arbitrary and perverse in rejecting the relief claimed by the petitioner to quash the memorandum of charges. However, the Tribunal by a common order disposed of O.A. No.1076 of 2014 also wherein a contempt application was filed bearing C.P. No.425 of 2014 to pay her arrear dues, which was directed to be paid within a period of six weeks, as an interim measure, in the Original Application by the Tribunal. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Bhabani Sankar Mishra, contended that the petitioner was appointed by the Superintending Engineer, P.H. Circle, Sambalpur by order dated 19.07.1997 under Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme in regular establishment. In the said appointment order, it was specifically mentioned that the same was issued with reference to the letter of the Superintending Engineer R.W.S. & S Circle, Sambalpur bearing No.2918 dated 02.07.1997 and letter No.3403 dated 26.06 .1997 of the Collector, Bolangir. Her service was under the disposal of the Superintending Engineer R.W.S. & S. Circle, Sambalpur for posting her against the vacant post lying under him. However, the Superintending Engineer R.W.S.& S Circle, Sambalpur is not her appointing authority as stated above. While the petitioner was continuing as such, she faced harassment at the working place by the Head Clerk. As a result of which, she suffered mental illness and subsequently a decree of divorce was also passed. Due to such mental illness, she submitted a leave application in March, 2002, which was also extended from time to time till November, 2002. However, due to her mental illness, she could not make any further communication. After the treatment and recovery from her ailment, she filed a representation to the Chief Engineer R.W.S. & S, Odisha, Bhubaneswar for her transfer. Considering her representation, the Chief Engineer R.W.S & S, Odisha, Bhubaneswar issued an order of transfer on 26.11.2011 and transferred the petitioner from the office of the Executive Engineer R.W.S. & S. Division, Bargarh to the office of the Executive Engineer, R.W.S. & S. Division, Kendrapara as per her representation and it was indicated that she cannot claim her seniority if joined at Kendrapara and her transfer is made on private ground after careful consideration of her representation. It was also directed in the order of the transfer that the petitioner is to submit her fitness certificate as she was on leave for a long time on medical ground at the time of her joining, failing which the joining will not be accepted. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner joined at Kendrapara after being duly relieved from her post w.e.f. 25.02.2012 from Bargarh by the Executive Engineer, RWSS. 3. As her salary was not released due to non-submission of papers by Sambalpur Circle and her leave period was not regularized, she approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.1076 of 2014 wherein an interim order was passed to pay the salary of the petitioner within a particular time. However, since the same was not complied with, the petitioner filed C.P. No.425 of 2014. 4. As a counter blast to the same, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her by the Superintending Engineer, R.W.S. & S., Sambalpur. 5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in enquiry report the Enquiring Officer without examining the documents and only on surmises held that the petitioner remained wilfully and unauthorizedly absent from 06.03.2002 to 24.02.2012. She had reported on duty on 24.02.2012 in RWS & S Division, Bargarh where she was relieved from duty on the succeeding day to enable her to join under RWS & S Division, Kendrapara on transfer. 6. Challenging those illegality and irregularity committed in the disciplinary proceeding, she approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.2180 of 2014 wherein an interim order was passed not to proceed with the disciplinary proceeding. However, violating the said order, the disciplinary proceeding went on and a report was filed by the Enquiry Officer along with two other persons. The Tribunal however passed the impugned order on 16.09.2016 without considering the irregularities raised by the applicant before it. According to the petitioner, even though as per the office order dated 29.09.2013, wherein the categories of cases to be heard by Division Bench has been fixed and at Sl. No.13 the cases relating to Disciplinary Proceeding is coming under the Division Bench Cases, the same was heard and disposed of by the Single Bench. The petitioner challenged the said order in the present writ petition on the aforementioned grounds on 07.10.2016. 7. No.13 the cases relating to Disciplinary Proceeding is coming under the Division Bench Cases, the same was heard and disposed of by the Single Bench. The petitioner challenged the said order in the present writ petition on the aforementioned grounds on 07.10.2016. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that Rule 72 of the Orissa Service Code is not applicable to the petitioner, as the petitioner is continuing as a temporary employee. The said rule has application for permanent employees. In support of his stand, learned Counsel relied on the decision of this Court in the case of (Dr.) Sachidananda Nayak v. State of Orissa and another reported in (1973) ILR Cuttack 1068. With regard to the stand that the since the petitioner was continuing at Kendrapara at the time of framing of the charges, the Superintending Engineer, RWSS Circle, Sambalpur cannot initiate the disciplinary proceeding. In support of his such stand, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Puranabandhu Pradhan v. Collector, Cuttack and another, reported in (1977) ILR Cuttack 337. The petitioner also relied a decision of this Court in the case of Kanhu Charan Sethy & others v. State of Orissa and others in OJC No.1421 of 1996, wherein it has been held that once the authorities were aware of the interim order passed by the Tribunal, the so called order of dismissal is void. He further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Scooter India Limited, Lucknow vs. Labour Court, reported in AIR 1989 SC 149 , where the disciplinary enquiry was found fair and lawful ;and its finding is not vitiated in any manner, the same could not be a ground for interference with the order of termination of service by Labour Court, rather, the direction of the labour Court for reinstatement of employee with 75% back wages on the ground that erring workman should be given opportunity to reform himself and prove to be loyal and disciplined employee of the company, is not illegal and arbitrary. Reliance was also placed in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Smt. Jaya Quddusi reported in AIR 1994 SC 2254 , where the Apex Court has considered that before service of termination of ad hoc employee, maternity leave was sanctioned to the said ad hoc employee and she was allowed to join the duty. The salary for the entire leave period was also sanctioned. In such a situation, the Apex Court held that as the maternity leave was duly sanctioned, it would have to be presumed that she had continued in service from her initial appointment. The Government had by its own action sanctioned the leave and treated the respondent as being in continuous service from the date of her initial appointment. 8. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State supporting the impugned order and indicating therein that the petitioner was removed from service on completion of Disciplinary Proceeding and the said order was passed on 18.11.2016 which was communicated to the petitioner on 22.11.2016. 9. As it appears, on 04.09.2014 a memorandum was issued enclosing the Articles of Charges to the following extent :- 1. Wilful and un-authorized absence from Govt. duty. 2. Negligence and dereliction of Govt. duty. The said charges were framed against the petitioner for violation of Rule 3 and 4 of Odisha Govt. Servants Conduct Rules’ 1959 read with Rules 71 (1) & (2) of the Orissa Service Code. Statement of imputation of misconduct was also enclosed along with the memorandum in support of the Articles of Charges. With regard to wilful and un-authorized prolonged absence from Govt. duty, in the Statement of Imputations of Misconduct, it has been indicated that the petitioner applied for leave of one month i.e. 06.03.2002 to 06.04.2002 due to her illness with head quarters leaving permission. The said leave was extended by her from 07.04.2002 to 30.10.2002. She remained absent from 01.11.2012 to 24.02.2012, i.e. the date of reporting the duty on 24.02.2012 afternoon in the office of Executive Engineers’ RWS & S Division, Bargarh, unauthorizedly. In spite of refusal of leave and issue of repeated instructions to join in duty by the Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division, Bargarh, she has failed to do so. With regard to negligence and dereliction of Govt. duty, it has been indicated that she remained prolong absence from Govt. In spite of refusal of leave and issue of repeated instructions to join in duty by the Executive Engineer, RWS & S Division, Bargarh, she has failed to do so. With regard to negligence and dereliction of Govt. duty, it has been indicated that she remained prolong absence from Govt. duty as indicated above, which violates Rule 13 (2) of the Odisha Leave Rule, 1966 and the said un-authorized absence from, Govt. duty causing dislocation of Govt. work has violated Rule 3 and 4 of Odisha Govt .Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 read with Rules 71 (1) & (2) of the Orissa Service Code. 10. Petitioner however filed her show cause to the same categorically denying the charges of unauthorized absence from duty and explained the facts and circumstances and also the facts of harassment at the work place by the head clerk on 01.01.2002, which resulted her mental illness, for which the petitioner could not able to continue in her duty, considering which the Chief Engineer had transferred her from Sambalpur to Kendrapara in the year 2012. She has also joined in the said post at Kendrapara and received the salary for some period. She has also stated in the show cause that she had approached the Tribunal in O.A. No.1076 of 2014 claiming the relief of duty pay in the initial scale and filed a contempt petition when the initial pay which was being given to her in absence of her L.P.C. received from her previous station, i.e. Bargarh Division, therefore, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against her. She also stated the wilful unauthorized absent from duty and gross duty negligence brought against her under Rule 15 of OCS (C.C.A.) Rules, 1959 read with Rule 71 (i) and 72 (ii) of Odisha Service Code inviting major penalty like removal from service which has been brought against her was afterthought and she may be exonerated from the said charges. Her prolong medical leave period be regularized and the pay may be fixed as per ORSP Rule, 2006 etc. She reiterated that since she was staying at Kendrapara, the enquiry may not be held at Bargarh/Sambalpur Circle due to threat to her life from her Ex-husband and Ex-Head Clerk, who caused harassment to her in the working place and the consequential suffering she had undergone. She reiterated that since she was staying at Kendrapara, the enquiry may not be held at Bargarh/Sambalpur Circle due to threat to her life from her Ex-husband and Ex-Head Clerk, who caused harassment to her in the working place and the consequential suffering she had undergone. In the said show cause she had brought to the notice that relevant documents along with the memorandum of charges have not been supplied to her, for which she had prayed for supplying the necessary documents. However, nothing was supplied to her nor she was allowed to defend herself by examining the witnesses or cross-examining the witnesses of the Department. 11. The Executive Engineer, RSS& S Division, Sambalpur was appointed as the Enquiring Officer. He submitted the enquiry report, a copy of which was filed before the Tribunal as Annexure-6. Interrogation of Smt. Das, J.C. has been recorded which proves that the fact of her wilful and unauthorized absence from duty. Her unauthorized leave from 06.03.2002 to 23.02.2012 proves the gross misconduct against her causing grave dislocation in Govt. work, even though in the Articles of Charges gross misconduct was not there. The enquiry report supposed to be submitted by the enquiring officer to the disciplinary authority, however the same was submitted by the Enquiring Officer along with one Alekha Ranjan Mahakud, Senior Clerk and one Smt. Nalini Satapathy, Junior Engineer. 12. This Court called for the original records of the Departmental Proceeding, wherein no order sheet was maintained regarding the communication of removal order. There was no direction also in the order sheet to communicate the order to the petitioner. However, a copy of the order dated 18.11.2016 was annexed in the counter affidavit and in the front page of the said copy, it has been endorsed that the same was served to the petitioner on 22.11.2016. The signature of the petitioner in the said endorsement reveals that her surname has been put as ‘Dash’. In all the records be it Govt. record or the documents filed by the petitioner such as Vakalatnama, affidavit in the writ petition, appointment order, transfer order etc. the name of the petitioner has been mentioned with surname ‘Das’ and the petitioner also put his signature with the surname ‘Das’. So the service of such communication upon the petitioner creates a doubt. 13. record or the documents filed by the petitioner such as Vakalatnama, affidavit in the writ petition, appointment order, transfer order etc. the name of the petitioner has been mentioned with surname ‘Das’ and the petitioner also put his signature with the surname ‘Das’. So the service of such communication upon the petitioner creates a doubt. 13. This Court in the case of Pranabandhu (supra) held that as per Rule 2 (d) of the Orissa Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, the Disciplinary Authority has been defined for the purpose of initiation of disciplinary proceeding in regard to any delinquent, delinquency in old post and joined another post where confirmed before the charge framed. In such event the appointing authority of old post is not the disciplinary authority for delinquencies there. Thus, since the petitioner joined at Kendrapara on 25.02.2012 and the charge was famed in September, 2014 by the Superintending Engineer, RWSS, Circle, Sambalpur, is not sustainable as per the aforesaid ratio. 14. In the case of Dr. Sachidananda Nayak this Court observed as follows :- “There is a clear distinction between a temporary and a permanent Government servant. The legal position was examined at length by the learned Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in Dhingra’s case. Jai Shankar’s case obviously was on the footing that the order was one of removal from service of a permanent servant before he superannuated and, therefore, per se, was a penalty. The order before us by asking a temporary servant to be relieved did not impose any penalty and Article 311 (2) cannot be invoked We are of the view that the rule in Jai Shankar’s case is applicable only to the case of a permanent servant. We accordingly agree with Dhavan, J., (A.I.R. 1968 Allahabad 14) in his analysis of Jai Shankar’s case. We are of the opinion that the Tripura, Andhra Pradesh and Allahabad (1971) cases have not been correctly decided to the extent they have held that Jai Shankar’s case applies to a temporary servant also. Rule 72 of the Service Code in its own terms, therefore, applies to a permanent Government servant while Rule 13 (4) of the Leave Rules, covers the case of a temporary Government servant. The Service Code was framed under Section 240 of the Government of India Act and has been continued under “Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 72 of the Service Code in its own terms, therefore, applies to a permanent Government servant while Rule 13 (4) of the Leave Rules, covers the case of a temporary Government servant. The Service Code was framed under Section 240 of the Government of India Act and has been continued under “Article 309 of the Constitution. The Leave Rules have been framed under Article 309. Rule 72 and 13 (4) cover different fields the former relates to permanent servants and the later to temporary servants. They belong to two acknowledged classes of Government employees. There is no question of any discrimination. The contentions on the footing of Article 14 of the Constitution is misconceived. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the writ application.” 15. Once the petitioner filed the show cause bringing to the notice of the authorities about the harassment caused to her by the Head Clerk in the working place and consequent thereof she suffered mental imbalance and also divorce from her husband, the same was neither investigated nor was any mention made in the inquiry report. 16. The petitioner in her show cause to the Article of Charges, at paragraph-5, specifically pleaded before the employer regarding the harassment in work place and threat of life by the Ex-Head Clerk, Shri Panchanan Das, under the influence of the liquor on 1.1.2002, which lead to her divorce and prolong mental depression. However, the employer, after receiving such fact has not taken any step as per the guideline fixed by the Apex Court in the case of Vishaka & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in AIR 1997 SC 3011 , nor made any enquiry thereto, rather proceeded with the departmental proceeding, in spite of the interim order passed by the Tribunal. In the case of Vishaka (supra), it was held that sexual harassment of working women amounts to violation of right to gender equality and right to life and liberty and such an incident is also violation of the victim’s fundamental right to practice any profession or to carry out any occupation, trade or business. The victim is therefore, entitled to remedy against such harassment for enforcement of fundamental rights. The victim is therefore, entitled to remedy against such harassment for enforcement of fundamental rights. A writ of mandamus in such a situation, if it is to be effective, needs to be accompanied by directions for prevention; as the violation of fundamental rights of this kind is a recurring phenomenon. In the said decision, at paragraph-16, the Apex Court laid down the guidelines for due observance at all work places or other institutions, until a legislation is enacted for the purpose. At point No.4, and Point No.5, the Apex Court has dealt with regard to Criminal Proceeding and Disciplinary Action to the following extent :- 4. Criminal Proceedings: Where such conduct amounts to a specific offence under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law the employer shall initiate appropriate action in accordance with law by making a complaint with the appropriate authority. In particular, it should ensure that victims, or witnesses are not victimized or discriminated against while dealing with complaints of sexual harassment. The victims of sexual harassment should have the option to seek transfer of the perpetrator or their own transfer. (emphasis supplied). 5. Disciplinary Action : Where such conduct amounts to misconduct in employment as defined by the relevant service rules, appropriate disciplinary action should be initiated by the employer in accordance with those rules. Taking into consideration the same, the Chief Engineer, after receiving the representation of the petitioner has transferred her from Bargarh to Kendrapara. The Disciplinary Authority has not considered all those facts nor enquired into such complaint even if the higher authority has accepted such incident which had occurred at the work place and the petitioner was the victim of such offence. 17. As discussed in the above paragraphs, numbers of procedural irregularities were there in conducting the disciplinary proceeding, such as, once there is no allegation of misconduct, the enquiry office submitted the report proving the allegation of misconduct. Similarly, the order of removal as contended by the opposite party served on her, casts serious doubt. The ‘surname’ in the signature of the petitioner so also non-mention of anything in the order sheet about the service of the same upon the petitioner, it cannot be concluded that the same was served on the petitioner. 18. Similarly, the order of removal as contended by the opposite party served on her, casts serious doubt. The ‘surname’ in the signature of the petitioner so also non-mention of anything in the order sheet about the service of the same upon the petitioner, it cannot be concluded that the same was served on the petitioner. 18. The Chief Engineer, considering the grievance of the petitioner transferred her to Kendrapara and while continuing at Kendrapara, the so called departmental proceeding, i.e. after two years of her continuance at Kendrapara, appears to have been initiated by the Sambalpur Circle as a counterblast to the contempt petition initiated by her against the authorities to get her arrear salary pursuant to the Tribunal’s order. Accordingly, the initiation of the Departmental Proceeding is afterthought and purported to harass the petitioner. That apart the authorities have proceeded with the Departmental Proceeding during the interim stay order of the Tribunal, while the applicant could not participate in the said proceeding to defend herself properly. Thus it is tell tale that the punishment was imposed on her without giving opportunity to participate in the proceeding. As such the natural justice has not been complied with while concluding the proceeding behind her back. Therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Proceeding is nonest in the eye of law. 19. In view of discussions made hereinabove, we are of the opinion that there is error apparent on the face of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in not considering the statutory rules while directing the authority to proceed with the Disciplinary Proceeding, instead of quashing the said charges as prayed for. Accordingly we quash the impugned order dated 16.09.2016 passed by the Tribunal and also quash the Disciplinary Proceeding bearing No.2071 dated 04.09.2014 and the order of removal passed there under, in exercising the jurisdiction conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court directs the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner within a period of eight weeks hence. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. I agree. Petition disposed of.