1. Hearing of these Writ Petitions has been convened and conducted through Video-Conferencing.

2. Vide order dated 10.04.2018, W.P.(S) No. 1901 of 2017 was ordered to be listed along with W.P.(S) No. 2599 of 2017.

3. In W.P.(S) No. 1901 of 2017 the petitioner has challenged the show-cause notice issued to her and in W.P.(S) No. 2599 of 2017 she has challenged the order of termination contained in Memo No. 813 dated 25.04.2017, amongst other prayers.

W.P.(S) No. 1901 of 2017

4. In view of the final order of termination of service which has been passed against the petitioner, permitting the petitioner to raise all such grounds which are available to her when a challenge to the order of termination dated 25.04.2017 is mounted, W.P.(S) No. 1901 of 2017 is disposed of having been rendered infructuous.

5. Ordered accordingly.

W.P.(S) No. 2599 of 2017

6. The petitioner, a widow, was appointed on 03.10.2009 on a Class-IV post on compassionate ground and she joined the post of Peon in the High School, Dhanbad on 06.10.2009. Her certificates were verified and on the basis of the report dated 22.02.2010, the District Education Officer vide Annexure-6 which forms part of this writ petition accorded approval for payment of salary. On 08.06.2012 the petitioner was transferred to another +2 High School at Govindpur where she did submit her joining on 13.06.2012, after being relieved on 12.06.2012 vide Annexure-8. About 5 years thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to her on the ground that she does not possess the educational qualification in terms of Memo dated 25.04.1997. On 18.03.2017 the petitioner submitted her reply and thereafter another show-cause notice was issued to her on 27.03.2017 which was followed by letter dated 18.04.2017. The petitioner in response thereof has informed the respondent-authority by letter dated 24.04.2017 that her writ petition is pending in this Court. But, by an order contained in Memo dated 25.04.2017 the petitioner has been terminated from service.

7. Various grounds have been raised by Mr. Manoj Tandon, the learned counsel for the petitioner for assailing the order of termination dated 25.04.2017 and repelling his submissions Mrs. Chandra Prabha, the learned State counsel referring to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 4536 of 2014 and the memo dated 25.04.1997 as also dated 12.07.1977 has submitted that the petitioner who does not possess the requisite qualification for appointment, that is, standard VIII pass, was not eligible for appointment on a Class-IV post, even on compassionate ground.

8. The decision of the respondent-authority to terminate the petitioner from service is flawed atleast for three reasons. First, under the extent rules termination from service is a major punishment and now this is not an area of doubt that without holding a proper enquiry/departmental proceeding a regular employee cannot be terminated from service. There are end number of judgments on this issue and one may refer to the judgment in “Kamal Nayan Mishra vs. State of M.P. & Ors.” reported in (2010) 2 SCC 169.

9. Mrs. Chandra Prabha, the learned State counsel has however tried to contend that the proceeding initiated against the petitioner was a regular enquiry as a second show-cause notice was issued to him. I am unable to accept this submission for the simple reason that in service jurisprudence a “second show-cause notice” has a distinct connotation and meaning. Merely because after issuing a show-cause notice another notice has been issued it would not become a “second show-cause notice” as understood in a departmental enquiry. In a departmental proceeding after a report is submitted by the enquiring officer a “second show-cause notice” is issued to the delinquent employee supplying him a copy of the enquiry report and this has a solemn significance in a departmental proceeding. There was no enquiry against the petitioner, no charge was framed and no witness was examined by department nor an opportu