IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P No.13030 of 2010 Date of Decision:16.9.2011 Mrs. Pinki and another .... Petitioner Versus HMT Employees Education Society (Regd.) Pinjore and others . ... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R.K. Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Priyanka Dalal, A.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Anand Chibber, Advocate for respondent No.2 **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. (Oral) This writ petition is on behalf of the petitioners whose services were terminated vide orders dated 30.6.2010 (P-9), 12.7.2010 (P-10) and 127.2010 (P-11). After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the following admitted facts emerge: That the posts were advertised on 2.2.2008. The interview was held on 28.2.2008. The petitioners joined on 12.3.2008 and 14.3.2008 respectively. After completing the probation period, they were confirmed on 1.4.2009. On the basis of a complaint, a preliminary enquiry was held. On the basis of the enquiry report, the Director, School Education, Haryana directed the Management to cancel the appointment of the petitioners vide order dated 30.6.2010 (P-9). In compliance of the said order, the C.W.P No.13030 of 2010 -2- Management issued the termination order of the petitioners. No show cause notice was issued to the petitioners before passing the order of termination. No regular enquiry was held. Learned counsel for the State while vehemently opposing the prayer of the petitioners submitted that while holding preliminary enquiry, the statements of the petitioners were recorded. The Management was further required to proceed in accordance with law. However, it was the management, who should have issued show cause notice before terminating the services of the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Management, however, pointed out that show cause notice was duly served upon the petitioners. The attention of this Court was invited to Annexure P-10, which was stated to be the show cause notice. A perusal of Annexure P-10 shows that in fact the same was an advance notice as per Clause 3 of the appointment order and the same was rather order terminating the services of the petitioner- Mrs. Pinki. In view of the above facts, this Court does not find merit in the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. In somewhat similar circumstances, this Court in the case of Ombir Singh and another v. The Distt. Rural Development Agency, Faridabad and another observed in para 9 as under: “The above mentioned authorities do support the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. As observed above, no reasons are forthcoming as to why the petitioners' services were terminated as no C.W.P No.13030 of 2010 -3- written statement has been filed. However, on the basis of the record, the learned counsel for the respondents has argued that as there were certain complaints regarding the selection and the minutes of the Selection Committee had not been put up before the Deputy Commissioner the selection was cancelled. If there was any genuine complaint regarding the selection and the competent authority and some material before it that the selection was vitiated, the same could not have been set aside without affording opportunity to the petitioners or issuing them some sort of show cause notice. It is not disputed, as stated above, that the Additional Deputy Commissioner/Chief Executive Officer is the appointing authority of the petitioners, being the Chairman of the Selection Committee. The observations of the Deputy Commissioner that the Selection was not fair on them were some complaints regarding the selection and on that basis the selection was being set aside, would also raise a finger against the members of the Committee, including the competent authority which is Additional Deputy Commissioner. For this additional reason, it was all the more necessary that the petitioners should have been heard before passing the impugned order. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ravinder C.W.P No.13030 of 2010 -4- Kaur v. State of Haryana and others 1991(1) RSJ 727 while setting aside the order of termination which was passed without granting any opportunity to the candidates held that cancellation of appointment in violation of the Principles of natural justice cannot be sustained. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Shridhar v. Nagar Palika Jaunpur and others 1990(1) RSJ 31 in somewhat similar circumstances set aside the order of termination as the Commissioner had terminated the service without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Para 8 of the said judgment reads thus: “The High Court committed serious error in upholding the order of the Government dated 13.2.1980 in setting aside the appellant's appointment without giving any notice or opportunity to him. It is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without hearing. The order of appointment conferred a vested right in the appellant to hold the post of Tax Inspector, that right could not be taken away without affording opportunity of hearing to him. Any order passed in violation of principles of natural justice is rendered void. There is no dispute that the Commissioner's order has been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the appellant therefore the order was illegal and void. The High Court committed serious error in upholding the Commissioner's Order setting aside the appellant's C.W.P No.13030 of 2010 -5- appointment. In this view, Orders of the High Court and the Commissioner are not sustainable in law.” It is admitted that no regular enquiry was held. No show cause notice was issued before terminating the services of the petitioners. Argument that it was the Management, who was further required to proceed in accordance with law does not help as the Management too without affording any opportunity of hearing or without issuing any show cause notice, terminated the service of the petitioners. In fact, the order directing the Management to initiate action against the petitioners too was passed without following the rules of natural justice. In fact, it was at this stage before the direction was issued by the Director that opportunity of hearing should have been granted to the petitioners. The said issue was discussed by this Court in CWP No.6241 of 2005 decided on 25.4.2005 (titled as Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana and others) and it was held: “The petitioners came into service from 1990 onwards. Their services are sought to be abruptly terminated on the ground that their initial appointments were perhaps contrary to the rules. It is a settled proposition of law that the orders causing civil consequences cannot be passed without observing rules of natural justice. Mr. Malik has rightly made a grievance that t he show- cause notices issued by the Block Education Officer are mere formality as the decision has already been taken by the superior authority to terminate the services of the petitioners. In our opinion, the C.W.P No.13030 of 2010 -6- petitioners have been condemned unheard. The show-cause notice had to precede the decision to terminate the services of the petitioners. In the present case, the Director has already taken a decision and thereafter the Block Education Officer has issued the show-cause notices. The action taken by the respondents is in clear breach of rules of natural justice.” Coming back to the present case, it is admitted that no regular enquiry was held. No show cause notice was issued by the respondents before terminating the services of the petitioners. No opportunity to defend was given to the petitioners. In view of the above discussion, the present petition is allowed and orders dated 30.6.2010 (P-9), 12.7.2010 (P-10) and 127.2010 (P-11) are hereby set aside and the petitioners shall be allowed to continue in service with all consequential benefits. However, this shall not preclude the competent authority from passing a fresh order after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 16.9.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE