The punishment imposed on the employee must be proportional to the misconduct and should adhere to the established principles of disciplinary proceedings.

ORDER :

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

(a) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in nature of certiorari for quashing the order no.230, dated 14.12.2020 (Annexure-18) whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from her services, for the reason that the order of dismissal lacks coregent reasoning and also lacks deliberation of the documents produced before the appellate authority.

AND/OR

(b) For the issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions or a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 27.06.2012 (Annexure- 9) whereby and whereunder a major punishment of dismissal has been imposed against the petitioner without appreciating the contention raised by the petitioner and the punishment order is disappropriate to the charges leveled against the petitioner.

2. The facts admitted in this case are that the petitioner, a government employee was employed as Lady Constable in Jharkhand Armed Police. She was accused by Uma Devi, who filed complaint vide letters dated 13.10.2011 and 07.02.2012, of having illicit relationship with her husband, namely, Baijnat Sahu. FIR was also lodged by Uma Devi on 12.09.2002, alleging that the petitioner is the cause of marital problems between her and her husband. Based on the complaint, a departmental proceeding being Departmental Proceeding No.8 of 2012 was initiated, in which, the petitioner was directed to submit her defence within ten days. She submitted her defence on 31.03.2012 and finally the petitioner was dismissed vide order dated 27.06.2012. The petitioner after her dismissal preferred an appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2012. Against the said order, petitioner has preferred a further appeal before the respondent No.2, which was also rejected vide order dated 18.02.2013. Challenging all the orders, the petitioner filed a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2690 of 2013. The Hon’ble High Court vide order dated 07.10.2020 after hearing the parties quashed both the appellate orders and directed the Appellate Authority to pass a reasoned order after discussing all the grounds raised by the petitioner. On the said direction, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 14.12.2020 rejected the appeal of the petitioner, resulting in this application.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the allegations were false and Uma Devi was provoked by her husband, who had been living separately since 2007. He further submitted that during the inquiry, Uma Devi admitted that she had no knowledge about the complaint filed on 07.02.2012, suggesting false implication. He further submitted that despite this, the inquiry officer concluded that the charges were proved. He further submitted that in the order dated 14.12.2020, the Appellate Authority did not take into consideration the genuineness of the complaint filed by the petitioner. Further the Appellate Authority should have taken into consideration the fact that the criminal proceeding against the petitioner has been dropped and the petitioner was discharged of all the allegation levelled against her.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State submitted that complaint against the petitioner was not false or malicious. He further submitted that in a detailed departmental inquiry it was found that the allegations are true. He further submitted that departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding are two different proceedings where the standard of proof is different. He further submitted th