IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9570 of 2011 Management Board of Ansal Institute of Technology, Gurgaon & others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Rajeshwar Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner is an Educational Institute having its registered office at Gurgaon. Respondent No.2 was appointed as Accounts-cum-Office Clerk with the petitioner-Institution. He was promoted also. Suddenly, his services were terminated on 8.2.2011. it is alleged that respondent No.2 had embezzled the amount of the management while discharging his duties. It is further pleaded that the termination order was passed by way of mutual understanding as any punitive action would have spoiled the career of respondent No.2. Respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the District Judge, Gurgaon in terms of the notification dated 8.9.2005 issued by the State of Haryana. The Appellate Authority had set-aside the order passed by petitioner-Management and has directed his reinstatement into service. Grievance is that the said order has been passed without obtaining any written statement or without giving any opportunity to lead any evidence. In fact, that was the primary grievance of respondent No.2 to challenge the order of his termination. As noticed from the impugned order, the services of Civil Writ Petition No.9570 of 2011 : 2 : respondent No.2 were terminated without even serving any notice to him or without holding any enquiry. The mutual understanding to pass a non-stigmatic order would not justify the action of the petitioners once the services of respondent No.2 were not of such a nature that the same could be terminated in the manner as stated. The Appellate Authority had clearly marshaled the issue in the impugned order by saying “whether the impugned order dated 8.2.2010 is unsustainable”. By referring to various authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellate Authority has taken a view that the impugned order was without disclosing any reason, passed in violation of principles of natural justice and, thus, is a nullity. It is conceded that no notice was ever served to respondent No.2 before directing his termination. In view of this factual position, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out, which appears to be just and reasonable. Dismissed. At this stage, counsel prays for liberty to proceed against respondent No.2 in accordance with law. I say nothing in regard to this prayer so made by the counsel for the petitioner. May 27, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE