In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 6639 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.7.2008 Harjinder Kaur ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.J.S.Maanipur, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.C.Goyal, Sr.DAG, Punjab. **** JUDGMENT M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of order dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P-4) terminating her services from the post of Anganwari Worker. Brief facts may first be noticed. The petitioner was appointed as Anganwari Worker on 26.12.2006 (Annexure P-3). After her joining, a complaint is stated to have been made by Smt.Akwant Kaur, widow of Balwinder Singh, resident of village Gujjarpura against her selection. An inquiry at the back of the petitioner was conducted and the impugned order has been passed. According to inquiry report dated 25.5.2007 (Annexure R-2) there was no resolution of Panchayat Smiti of village Shakri but the approval has been granted by the Chairman for appointment of the petitioner. The aforementioned findings have been recorded in the CWP No. 6639 of 2008 -2- inquiry report dated 25.4.2007 (R-II) concerning village Shakri. In para 10 and 12 of the petition, the petitioner has claimed that at no stage, she was associated with the inquiry nor any show cause notice was issued before passing the impugned order terminating her services for the post of Anganwari Worker. The averments made in para 10 and 12 of the petition have not been denied in the corresponding para of the reply. The inference is that the averments made by the petitioner are correct. There is, thus, patent violation of principles of natural justice. It is somewhat in similar circumstances, a Division Bench of this Court has decided CWP No.15588 of 2004 on 11.9.2006 (Annexure P-5) and has set aside the order of termination. The matter is squarely covered by the aforementioned Division Bench judgment. In view of above, the impugned order dated 26.4.2007 (Annexure P-4) is hereby quashed. Since operation of the termination order was stayed, the petitioner is continuing in service. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the respondents are granted liberty to re-examine the matter and, if so advised, take such action as is warranted by law after following the rules of natural justice. Petition stands disposed of. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) JUDGE July 25, 2008 anita