7. In view of the issue that arise for consideration of this Court; it is necessary to refer to the order, dated 02.06.2015, passed by this Court in WP(c)1734/2014. This Court while examining the challenge as presented by the petitioner before it, in respect of the order of release issued to the petitioner, vide order, dated 21.03.2014, had examined the background leading to the issuance of the said order, dated 21.03.2014. This Court upon examining the matter, in details, had come to a conclusion that the termination order, dated 13.12.2013, itself makes it clear that the conduct of the petitioner was regarded as unbecoming of a responsible officer holding the post of Public Relation and Information Officer(P.R.I.O.) of the University and that her actions were detrimental to the interest of the University and further, that the release order, dated 21.03.2014, was not passed basing on any fresh material coming before the authorities for consideration and the same was solely based on the materials that were so considered while issuing the earlier order of termination, dated 13.12.2013. This Court proceeded to further note that the release order, dated 21.03.2014, does not make mention of any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, however, the same also was held to not indicate that the same was passed for want of satisfactory performance on the part of the petitioner on the basis of any assessment made.
