1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 58/2008 (Urmila Jalbaji Chonde VERSUS The Chief Executive Officer, Z.P. Yavatmal) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Ms. Preeti Tiwari, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. M.I. Mourya, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : D.D.SINHA AND SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ. DATE : APRIL 23, 2008. Heard. The writ petition is directed against the communication dated 16.10.2002 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal, whereby the petitioner is removed from service as Anganwadi Sevika. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is violative of the principles of natural justice since no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. The counsel for the respondent denied this aspect and has submitted that the respondent has undertaken the proper procedure while conducting the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and on the basis of the report of the Enquiry Officer, appropriate action of terminating 2 the service of the petitioner was taken. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondent that on the basis of the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner, to which she had filed reply dated 14.08.2002, proper departmental enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer found that the charges levied against the petitioner were proved and submitted the report which was confirmed by the Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal. Considered the rival contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. This is not the case where the service of the petitioner came to be terminated without following principles of natural justice. On the other hand, the respondents have conducted the departmental enquiry and it is, only thereafter, on the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the appropriate action of terminating the services of the petitioner was taken. In that view of the matter, the petition suffers from lack of merits, the same is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE APTE