Termination on misconduct grounds requires a regular departmental inquiry and a fair hearing.

The Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC) advertised the post of Assistant Registrar at Jharkhand Raksha Shakti University (JRSU), requiring five years’ supervisory experience in specified institutions.

After scrutiny and interview, JPSC selected the petitioner, and the Vice-Chancellor appointed him on 15 March 2021.

In May 2024, following a direction from the Governor’s Secretariat to remove the Registrar and Assistant Registrar, the University issued the petitioner a show-cause notice alleging that he lacked the required experience. The Finance Officer terminated his services on 7 June 2024.

The petitioner challenged the termination, contending that it followed no regular departmental proceeding, that the decision was predetermined, and that the order was issued by an authority below the appointing authority.

1. Whether the petitioner’s termination could stand when it was imposed without a regular departmental proceeding and after a show-cause process the Court found to be predetermined.

2. Whether the termination order was invalid because it was issued by the Finance Officer, below the Vice-Chancellor who had appointed the petitioner.

3. Whether the petitioner’s alleged failure to meet the experience requirement independently justified termination.

The Court relied on the disciplinary-proceeding principles stated in Satyendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325, including that where major punishment is proposed, recording evidence in a disciplinary proceeding is mandatory.

It also relied on Ministry of Defence v. Prabhash Chandra Mirdha, (2012) 11 SCC 565, for the rule that removal or dismissal for misconduct must be imposed by an authority not below the appointing authority.

The termination order purported to rely on Rule 33(1) of the Jharkhand Raksha Shakti University Act, 2016.

The Court found that the University had issued only a show-cause notice and had not conducted a regular departmental proceeding before terminating the petitioner.

It considered the process predetermined because the Governor’s Secretariat had directed the petitioner’s removal before the notice was issued, making the subsequent opportunity to respond an “eye wash”.

Applying the rule in Satyendra Singh, the Court held that the petitioner’s services could not be terminated in this manner.

It further found that the Finance Officer had issued the order, although the Vice-Chancellor had appointed the petitioner, and applied Prabhash Chandra Mirdha to hold the order defective on that ground as well.

The Court did not determine the merits of the petitioner’s experience eligibility; it left the University free to conduct a fresh enquiry.

The University remained at liberty to hold a fresh enquiry and pass a fresh order, if advised.