The court held that removal from service must align with the severity of misconduct and emphasized the need for proportional punishment, especially considering the employee's long service record.

Order :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition was initially filed for the following reliefs:

(i) For quashing the Resolution as contained in Memo No. 454 dated 05.02.2019 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2 – the Joint Secretary, Department of School Education & Literacy, Government of Jharkhand, whereby it was decided to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner with further direction to serve her Memo of Charges mentioned in “Prapatra-Ka”.

(ii) For quashing of the Notification as contained in Memo No. 345 dated 25.01.2019 issued by the respondent no. 2, whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been suspended in contemplation of the decision to initiate departmental proceeding against her.

2. During pendency of the present writ petition, the respondent no. 2 passed final order in the departmental proceeding vide Notification as contained in memo no. 1447 dated 21.07.2020 and as such, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing the said Notification, whereby the order of ‘removal from service with immediate effect’ has been passed against the petitioner.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that vide Notification as contained in memo no. 345 dated 25.01.2019, the petitioner was suspended in contemplation of decision to initiate departmental proceeding against her. Thereafter, vide Resolution as contained in memo no. 454 dated 05.02.2019 issued under the signature of the respondent no. 2, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and Memo of Charges mentioned in “Prapatra-Ka” containing altogether seven charges in relation to her tenure of posting as District Education Officer, Palamau, was directed to be served upon her. The said charges levelled against her, are as under:

(i) continuous violation of the established procedure in relation to disposal of departmental work.

(ii) promoting financial irregularity and working with complete disinterest in the departmental works related to the welfare of students.

(iii) stopping the salary of the sub-ordinate employees and harassing them without any reason.

(iv) Pending the payment of contractors after completion of the civil construction work.

(v) Not disposing the complaints received from Mukhyamantri Jan Samvad and showing apathetic attitude towards complaints of common people.

(vi) violating the Government orders.

(vii) committing dereliction of duty and irregularity, which is violation of the rule 3(1)(i) & (ii) of the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976.

4. The petitioner submitted her reply to the concerned conducting and enquiry officer on 01.03.2019 denying the charges levelled against her, however, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report to the respondent no. 1 observing that the charges levelled against her were proved. Thereafter, the respondent no. 2 –disciplinary authority issued second show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter no. 1777 dated 29.05.2019 which was communicated to the petitioner by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi vide letter no. 809 dated 17.06.2019. The petitioner submitted reply to the second show cause notice on 01.07.2019 highlighting the biasness prevailing against her in the departmental proceeding which was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the procedure established under law. However, the respondent no. 2 being the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order of ‘removal from service’ against the petitioner vide Notification as contained in memo no. 1447 dated 21.07.2020, in purported e