CWP No.9322 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9322 of 2008 Date of decision 10.12.2008 Hawa Singh .....Appellant versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S. Gill. Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan. Present: Mr. S. S. Godara, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana. K. Kannan, J. 1. Termination of the services of Sweeper after regularisation but without any specific charge, is the subject of challenge before us. The petitioner's case is squarely covered by the batch of writ petitions disposed of by this Hon'ble High Court on 22.7.2008 in Angrej Singh versus State of Haryana and others in CWP No.6539 of 2008, dated 22.7.2008 and other cases and we adopt the same reasoning as has been done by Division Bench of this Court. The decision makes a specific reference to the fact that all the petitioners covered therein had been taken in service as Sweeper-cum- Chowkidar and later regularized on 2.2.2006. They had been served with show cause notices against termination on instructions from Superior Officers and delivered with termination orders as if it were a turn-key process and without framing any specific charges as to the delinquency or CWP No.9322 of 2008 -2- the nature of illegality purported to have been effected at the time of initial appointment. The Bench has also examined the State's existing policy of regularisation of persons, who had been in service for a long time before the dispensation in Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi reported in 2006 (4) SCC 1 and to the earlier ruling of this Court in CWP No.5770 of 2008 titled Shila Devi versus State of Haryana decided on 7.4.2008, that Sweepers could not be terminated without any proper enquiry or any charges. We adopt the same reasoning as made in the above batch of cases. 2. We also add another ground namely that the show cause notices themselves are an expression of pre-determined decision to dispense with the service of the petitioner. The Principal had been earlier served with a letter on 7.4.2008 from the District Education Officer which directs the Principal to terminate 198 Class IV employees after adopting the process of personal hearing. The letter also directs the compliance of the action to be sent immediately. The Principal who had, therefore, issued show cause notices was merely carrying out the pre-determined decision to terminate the service which vitiates the entire inquiry as farcical. It has been held by the decision of this Hon'ble Court in Pawan Kumar versus State of Haryana and others in CWP No.6141 of 2005 that where there had already been a decision to terminate the services of an employee, the issuance of show cause notice was only an empty formality and the Court would be justified in its intervention even at that stage without directing the party to go through the inquiry pursuant to the notice. We fully endorse the proposition of law as stated above. 3. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order of termination dated 23.5.2006 is quashed. CWP No.9322 of 2008 -3- The petition is allowed on the above terms. (MEHTAB S. GILL) JUDGE (K. KANNAN) 10.12.2008. JUDGE A. Kaundal