CWP No. 6364 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6364 of 2009 Date of Decision: April 28, 2009 Balwan Singh and another ...... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Umesh Narang, Advocate for the petitioners. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers 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? Ajay Tewari, J. The petitioners have challenged the letter Annexure P-9 whereby all Block Education Officers have been directed to terminate the services of all Class-IV employees whose appointments were illegal after following the prescribed procedure and after giving personal hearing. The apprehension voiced by learned counsel for the petitioners is that in fact this whole exercise is an eye wash and that the petitioners' services will be terminated without following any procedure. He has relied upon a decision of this Court in CWP No. 5770 of 2008 titled as Sheela Devi v. State of Haryana and others wherein this Court held as follows:- “It is an admitted fact that termination from service CWP No. 6364 of 2009 2 is a major penalty as envisaged under the above said rules. As per rules, referred to above, if the competent authority wishes to take any action for termination of service of an employee, it is incumbent upon that authority to institute a regular departmental enquiry. Shri Rathee has failed to show us any rule to the effect that without holding an enquiry, service of a regular employee can be terminated. If that is so, apprehension of the petitioner appears to be misconceived. We dispose of this writ petition, directing the respondents to take action against the petitioner, as per rules, referred to above, and if they wish to terminate service of the petitioner, for any wrong committed by him or at the time of process of selection, the authorities shall take action as per rules, referred to above ( i.e. only after regular departmental enquiry, if need be). It is inconceivable that even after this exposition of law the respondents will take any precipitate action which may violate the direction of this Court. I am confident that any action which may be taken against the petitioner will be taken as per law and in terms of the above mentioned judgment. Consequently this writ petition is disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE April 28, 2009 sunita