JUDGMENT Shree Chandrashekhar, J. - The petitioner is aggrieved of the order of dismissal from service. 2. Petitioner''s father who was working as Panbhar (Water Carrier) died in harness on 02.09.2004. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate grounds on the post of Rasoia (Cook) on 03.12.2008. On a complaint of Md. Jamil Ansari claiming himself husband of the petitioner a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.05.2012 on the allegation that she has secured appointment on compassionate grounds producing forged documents of divorce. Responding to the show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted her explanation asserting that at the time of appointment she was a divorcee. The disciplinary authority by an order dated 20.09.2012, however, dismissed her from service. The appellate authority has rejected her appeal by order dated 14.06.2013 against her dismissal from service. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has raised two fold contentions; (i) without initiating a regular departmental proceeding and affording the petitioner an opportunity to lead evidence, her dismissal from service by a simple show-cause notice is illegal, and (ii) once the appellate authority has admitted that at the time of her appointment she was divorcee, petitioner''s dismissal from service on the ground that only unmarried daughter can seek compassionate appointment is arbitrary and illegal. 4. By now it is well-settled that only in exceptional cases and those are such cases in which on admitted facts, without any dispute, it stands admitted that the appointee does not possess requisite educational qualification, a government servant can be dismissed from service, otherwise regular departmental proceeding in terms of Discipline and Appeal Rules is mandatory before a government servant is inflicted major penalty. On admitted facts a departmental proceeding was not initiated against the petitioner on an allegation that she has secured appointment by producing forged divorce paper and on that ground alone order of dismissal of the petitioner from service is liable to be quashed. 5. The appellate authority has also failed to consider this aspect of the matter, however, on merits also, I find that petitioner''s dismissal from service cannot be sustained in law. 6. In her reply dated 19.05.2012 to the show-cause notice dated 11.05.2012 the petitioner has taken a stand that when her marriage took place she was minor and after her marriage she was harassed and tortured by her husband. She has claimed that on 23.03.2007 she was divorced by Md. 6. In her reply dated 19.05.2012 to the show-cause notice dated 11.05.2012 the petitioner has taken a stand that when her marriage took place she was minor and after her marriage she was harassed and tortured by her husband. She has claimed that on 23.03.2007 she was divorced by Md. Jamil Ansari who had by that time contracted a second marriage and now with a view to harass her, he has lodged a false complaint against her. The appellate authority in its order dated 14.06.2013 has accepted that at the time of her appointment on compassionate grounds the petitioner was a divorcee, however, referring to letter dated 05.10.1991 under which wife, son, unmarried daughter and widowed daughter-in-law are given primacy for appointment on compassionate ground, the appellate authority has rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The appellate authority has apparently committed a serious error in law. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to letter dated 01.12.2015 vide Annexure-10 which contains the scheme for compassionate appointment under the Government of Jharkhand. Under Clause-4 of the scheme unmarried/widow/divorced/neglected daughters and married daughters have been treated as direct dependent of the government employee and entitled for compassionate appointment in case of death in harness of the employee. Whether the scheme contained under letter dated 01.12.2015 of the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha would have retrospective effect or not is an issue which need not be decided in this proceeding, however, one thing is clear that as on today the petitioner falls under Clause-4(iii) of the scheme for compassionate appointment and, thus, entitled for compassionate appointment. She is otherwise eligible and has worked for about 4 years. 7. Considering the aforesaid facts of the case and for the reasons indicated hereinabove, the petitioner''s dismissal from service is held illegal and consequently, order of dismissal from service dated 20.09.2012 and the appellate order dated 14.06.2013 are quashed. 8. The writ petition stands allowed.