ORDER :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rishu Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard on merit.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 01.10.2018, whereby, the petitioner has been terminated after rendering services for more than 30 years.

4. The petitioner was appointed on a vacant post of Assistant Teacher in Khunti, pursuant to an advertisement notice dated 21.09.1988, issued by the office of the District School Inspectress, Ranchi under the erstwhile State of Bihar. A three member Committee was even constituted which was presided over by the then District School Inspectress, Ranchi for appointment of Matric Trained Teacher in Government Girl's Middle School, Khunti. The petitioner, being desirous to be appointed as an Assistant Teacher, submitted her application before the concerned authority and after following due selection process, the petitioner was selected as eligible candidate for appointment on the vacant post of Assistant Teacher. The appointment letter dated 27.12.1988 was issued to the petitioner by the office of the District School Inspectress, Ranchi. The appointment of the petitioner was shown to have been made for a period of three months, but subsequently extension orders were issued from time to time, extending the appointment of the petitioner. Finally vide letter dated 18.12.1989, it was declared that the post on which the petitioner has been appointed is permanent in nature. The petitioner was thereafter discharging her duties to the full satisfaction of her superiors. The service of the petitioner was duly regularized by the District School Inspectress, Ranchi vide order dated 11.01.1991, contained in Annexure-4 of the writ petition. The petitioner was not complained of any misconduct, till date. The departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide letter dated 08.09.2010 and chargesheet in Form-K was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner replied to the said charge-sheet. The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report and pursuant thereto the impugned order has been passed, whereby, the service of the petitioner has been terminated vide order dated 01.10.2018. Aggrieved with this order, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.

5. Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the charge-sheet with regard to four charges have been issued against the petitioner and the termination order has been passed on the other ground, which is not even the part of the charge-sheet. He draws attention of the Court to the enquiry proceeding and submits that the Presenting Officer in clear terms has stated before the Enquiry Officer that the District School Inspectress, Ranchi was having the power to appoint Matric Trained Teachers. He submits that however the Enquiry Officer has also accepted this aspect of the matter that the records of the petitioner are not available. However, the provision of roster clearance or reservation has not been made before the Enquiry Officer and pursuant thereto a CBI enquiry, which was directed to be conducted by the direction of the Hon'ble Patna High Court. The CBI has opined that the records of the petitioner are not available. However, the same has been said to be made available, which is recorded in the proceeding. He further submits that the Enquiry Officer's report is itself contradictory and only on the ground of non-clearance of roster, the service of the petitioner has been terminated. He also submits that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the District School Inspectress, Ranchi was h