IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 6375 of 2016 ----- Anita Sinha, W/o Late Arbind Kumar Sinha ------ Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2.The Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand 3.The Director, Secondary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand 4.The Regional Deputy Director of Education, North Chhotanagpur Division, Hazaribag 5.The District Education Officer, Koderma ------ Respondent(s) …… CORAM : SRI ANANDA SEN, J. ------ For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate Mr. Siddharth Ranjan, Advocate Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate For the Resp-State : Mr. Ravi Kerketta, S.C.VI Mr. Rituraj, AC to S.C.VI …...... 10 / 24.02.2025: Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.04.2004 as contained in Memo No.1027, whereby and whereunder petitioner’s husband has been dismissed. The Appellate order dated 17.06.2016 is also under challenge. 3. After hearing the parties, I find that husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as an Assistant Teacher by a Managing Committee of the High School, Devipur, District Koderma. His appointment was approved by the Regional Deputy, Director Education, Hazaribag. The Department granted pay scale of the petitioner’s husband, thereafter based on Vigilance report the services of the petitioner’s husband was terminated on the ground that his appointment was void ab-initio. The ground for dismissing the petitioner’s husband is that there was no sanctioned post and he was not eligible to be appointed. 4. From submission of the parties, I find that the petitioner’s husband has worked for twenty two years and thereafter impugned order was passed. During these twenty two years, he regularly got salary from the Government. 5. A specific question was put to the learned counsel for the State as to whether before removing the petitioner’s husband any show- cause notice or departmental proceeding was initiated or not. Learned counsel after going through the counter affidavit submits that there is nothing in the counter affidavit to suggest as to any departmental proceeding was initiated or show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner’s husband before his dismissal. At para 20 of the writ petition, the petitioner stated that before passing the order of termination, the petitioner’s husband was not even supplied any document neither the enquiry report has been made available to him. At para 5 of the rejoinder application, I find that the petitioner has taken a specific plea that no notice was served upon the petitioner’s husband before passing the impugned order and no inquiry was conducted and also no witnesses were examined. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner’s husband worked for twenty two years, he was paid salary also. Now, the respondents have dismissed the petitioner’s husband on the ground that the appointment is void as there was no sanctioned post against which the petitioner’s husband was appointed and also on the ground that he does not possess the requisites qualification for appointment. The aforesaid allegation needs to be proved in a proper inquiry by leading evidence. Based on Vigilance inquiry report, the husband of the petitioner cannot be removed from service. Sufficient opportunity has to be given to the delinquent employee to defend his case. Merely based on the allegation levelled by the employer, punishment cannot be inflicted upon the delinquent employee. Further, Vigilance report is only an internal inquiry report, which cannot be the sole basis to dismiss the employee i.e. petitioner’s husband. -2- 7. In the case of Satyendra Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2024 INSC 873 relying upon the case of Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat and Another, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 301, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that preliminary enquiry report cannot be a basis to punish a person in a departmental proceeding. In this case it is worth to mention that not even a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner’s husband. Without initiating a departmental proceeding and without giving sufficient opportunity of hearing, the husband of the petitioner has been removed from service. The action of the respondents is violative of principle of natural justice and it is against well establish norms. 8. Thus, the impugned order dated 24.04.2004 is hereby set aside. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 9. The petitioner who is wife is entitled to get all the death-cum- retiral benefits as the husband of the petitioner has already died in the year, 2013. The same should be paid within eight weeks from the receipt of a copy of this order. Be it noted that it has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner on the instruction that the petitioner is not claiming any compassionate appointment. (ANANDA SEN, J.) R.S. -3-