Removal From Service For Procedural Lapses, Disinterest & Harassment of Subordinates, Disproportionate To Misconduct: Jharkhand HC

 

The Division Bench of the Jharkhand High Court, comprising Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai, held that removal from service is a punishment so drastic that it may be interfered with when it is “shockingly disproportionate” to the proven misconduct. The bench observed that misconduct characterised by procedural lapses, disinterest in duty and harassment of subordinates did not rise to the level of grave misconduct warranting the “capital punishment” of removal from service. The respondent had entered service in the Bihar Education Service Class-II cadre effective 8 December 1988, having been appointed through the 33rd Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, and after the re-organisation of the state, was allotted to the Jharkhand cadre. She was posted as Principal of the Government Girls +2 High School, Palamau from 20 December 2004 and remained until 5 July 2016. From that date she was transferred to the post of District Education Officer (DEO), Palamau. Within eight months of assuming the role, while still DEO, she became the subject of disciplinary proceedings: a memorandum of charges alleged that she continuously violated prescribed procedures, promoted financial irregularities, withheld salaries of subordinates, caused delays in processing bills and disobeyed government orders. The inquiry held the charges proved and a disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal from service. Aggrieved, the respondent filed a writ petition. The Single Judge quashed the removal order on the ground that the punishment was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh consideration of the quantum of punishment. The State then preferred an appeal against that order. The State contended that the respondent held a pivotal post of DEO with significant accountability and that her failure to discharge duties constituted serious breach of trust, justifying removal. The respondent, in turn, relied on her 31 years of unblemished service, arguing that the punishment failed to take that into account and was shockingly disproportionate. The High Court observed that its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution enables it to interfere with a punishment order if it is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the Court, even though the Court cannot act as an appellate authority and cannot re-appreciate the evidence or substitute its view on the reliability of the inquiry findings. The Court held that in this case the misconduct—consisting primarily of procedural lapses, casualness in official duties, lack of interest and harassment of subordinates—did not amount to grave misconduct warranting removal from service. The Court noted the respondent’s 31 years of unblemished service and held that the removal order deprived her of post-retirement benefits and pensions, in effect treating her entire service as if it never existed. That outcome was considered so disproportionate that it warranted interference. Accordingly, the appeal by the State was dismissed and the Single Judge’s order quashing the removal and remitting the matter for reconsideration of punishment was upheld.

WhatsApp Group Invite

Join WhatsApp Community