IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 9335 of 2010 Date of Decision: 20.5.2010. Kamlesh --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. J.S. Maanipur, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. R.S. Kundu, Addl. A.G., Haryana has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents-State. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner was terminated by the Programme Officer, I.C.D.S Cell, Gurgaon vide order dated 23.8.2007. The said termination order came to be challenged by the petitioner in CWP No. 18891 of 2008 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 5.11.2008 with the following direction:- “ The Director, Women & Child Development, Haryana, Sector 34-A, Chandigarh is directed to take a final decision by passing a speaking order on the appeal/representation (Annexure P-2) within a period of two months from the date of receiving of a copy of this order. With the above direction, petition is disposed of.” CWP. No. 9335 of 2010 -2- Pursuant to this direction the Director, Women & Child Development, Haryana was required to pass the consequential order. The Director instead of himself carrying out the exercise asked the A.D.C., Mewat to pass the order. The A.D.C passed the order dated 4.12.2009 setting aside the termination of the petitioner. While setting aside the termination, he remanded the case back to the Programme Officer, I.C.D.S Cell, Gurgaon, who had passed the order of termination for passing a fresh order after giving the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner herein. As a consequence of the aforesaid order, the Programme Officer has passed the impugned order dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure P-12) upholding the termination. Though, the petitioner has only challenged the order (Annexure P-12), however, from the record it appears that both the orders Annexures P-5 and P-12 are liable to be set aside on the short ground the same having been passed in violation of the Court direction. This Court vide its order dated 5.11.2008 had directed the Director, Women & Child Development, Haryana to pass a speaking order. The Director in his wisdom and without looking into the direction of the Court simply passed on the matter to A.D.C, who further delegated the authority to the Programme Officer to pass the order. Both these orders are not in consonance with the directions of this Court and are liable to be set aside. I order accordingly. The matter is remitted back to the Director, Women & Child Development, Haryana to pass a fresh order in compliance with the above mentioned directions dated 5.11.2008 within a period of two months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon him. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 20.5.2010. lucky