HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1261 of 2003 (S/S) Smt. Laxmi Devi W/o Shri Vinod Kumar … Petitioner Versus District Programming Officer Haridwar and others … Respondents Dated:- 22nd March, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Tapan Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. List has been revised, but, no one appears for the respondent no.3. The petitioner was appointed as an Aganwadi Karyakarti on 02.08.1997 and her services has been terminated by an order dated 14.08.2002. In paragraph 14 of the writ petition, the petitioner has categorically stated that no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. It has been alleged in paragraph 5 of the writ petition that the Director Child Development and Nutrification, U.P. has issued a letter dated 16.05.2000 to all the District Programme Officers to provide an opportunity of hearing before passing any order with respect to the Aganwadi Karyakarti. The respondent nos.1 & 2 have filed their counter affidavit stating in paragraph 13 that before passing the order of termination of the petitioner, no show cause notice was required to be given. In paragraph 5 of the said counter affidavit, the respondent nos.1 & 2 have contended that there was several complaint against the petitioner and that the supervisors inspected the centre and found the petitioner absent from duty and accordingly passed the order of termination. In the light of the aforesaid categorical admission of the respondents, 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. Since the respondents have passed the order of termination without affording an opportunity of hearing. consequently, on the short ground that no notice or opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner, 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 to the petitioner. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 22.03.2010 LSR