HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1257 of 2008 (S/S) Pramod Singh Mehra S/o late Chanar Singh Mehra … Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Peya Jal Nigam and others … Respondents Dated:- 29th March, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order Nos.4410 and 4411 dated 18th July, 2008 passed by the respondent no.4 terminating the services of the petitioner. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is that the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground. By the impugned order, the services of the petitioner has been terminated. In paragraph 9 of the writ petition, it has been alleged that no notice or chargesheet was issued to the petitioner nor any enquiry was held nor any opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. This fact has not been denied by the respondents in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit. The respondents have, however, stated that the petitioner remained absent unauthorisedly without seeking any leave for various period from 2007 to 2008 and that several show cause notices were issued and a publication in the newspaper was also made and in response to the said notices and publication, the petitioner did not appear and consequently, the impugned order was passed. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the order of termination entails civil consequences for which it is necessary that an opportunity of hearing is required to be given. The principles of natural justice, as enumerated under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, were not complied with by the respondents. There is a charge against the petitioner and an enquiry ought to have been conducted in accordance with rules. Since the respondents have passed the order of termination without affording an opportunity of hearing, consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. However, it would be open to the respondents to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing and take disciplinary action in accordance with law against the alleged misconduct committed by the petitioner. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 29.03.2010 LSR