Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 118 (HP)

KUMARI YOGITA BALI v. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

2009-03-09

RAJIV SHARMA

body2009
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J. (Oral):-The petitioner was appointed vide order 13.2.1995. She was removed initially on 10.4.1995. However, she was re-engaged on 28.4.1995. It appears from the record that respondent No.3 has sent some report to the State Government pursuant to which her services were terminated on 7.8.1995. 2. Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate has strenuously argued that the petitioner was neither served with a notice nor any inquiry as stipulated vide office order dated 13.2.1995 was held against the petitioner. His precise case is that the order dated 7.8.1995 is vitiated due to non-compliance of principles of natural of justice. 3. Mr. R.K. Sharma, learned Senior Additional Advocate General argued that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on the basis of the report furnished by respondent No.3 to the State Government. He further contended that the petitioner has not been found mature person by the Deputy Commissioner when he submitted his report to the State Government. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the pleadings of the parties. 5. It is evident from the perusal of clause (g) of office order dated 13.2.1995 that an inquiry ought to have been instituted against the petitioner before terminating her services. It is not disputed by the learned Senior Additional Advocate General that no inquiry was held against the petitioner and her services have been terminated only on the basis of the report furnished by respondent No.3 to the State Government. This course could not be adopted by the State to terminate the services of the petitioner. The petitioner ought to have been served with a notice or regular inquiry was required to be held as per clause (g) of letter dated 13.2.1995. The services of the petitioner have been terminated on 7.8.1995 merely on the basis of the report furnished by respondent No.3 to the State Government. She has not been associated in any manner by respondent No.3 while submitting the report to the State Government. The plea of the respondents that she was not in Government employment cannot be accepted in view of the issuance of Annexures P-1 and P-2. In fact, the appointment letter has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Working Women Hostel, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. Her services have also been terminated at the instance of the State Government. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. In fact, the appointment letter has been issued by the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Chairman, Working Women Hostel, Parwanoo, District Solan, H.P. Her services have also been terminated at the instance of the State Government. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order Annexure P-8 dated 7.8.1995 is quashed and set aside. However, the liberty is reserved to the respondent-State to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. There will, however, be no order as to costs.