Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1159 (HP)

Parveen Kumar v. State of H. P.

2017-10-11

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2017
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. 1. Learned Deputy Advocate General has produced on record instructions received by him from the office of BDO, Amb, which read as under:- “In reply to above noted letter stated above it is submitted that the service of the petitioners are still continue and not terminated. It is respectfully submitted that the notice dated 5.5.2012 had been served upon petitioners but service has not been terminated. It is further submitted that the act and conduct of the petitioners are satisfactory presently.” 2. Be that as it may, keeping in view the fact that the impugned order of termination of the services of petitioners was issued by the authority concerned pursuant to order passed by Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator (MGNREGA) Una, District Una, H.P. dated 5.5.2012, wherein the said authority had directed the BDO concerned to dispense with the services of the petitioners after issuing show cause notice to them, both the said orders are liable to be quashed. This is for the reason that it is settled principle of law that no order which has civil consequences can be passed at the back of a person. In the present case, vide Annexure P5 Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Programme Coordinator (MGNREGA) Una, District Una, H.P. had directed dispensation of the services of the petitioners after issuing a show cause notice. Had direction by the said authority been to the effect that a show cause notice be issued to the petitioners as to why their services be not dispensed with, it was a different issue. However, rather than doing this, what the said authority did was that it directed the BDO to dispense with the services of the petitioners, though after issuing a show cause notice. Now when decision already stood taken by the authority to dispense with the services of the petitioners, it is not understood as to for what purpose the show cause notice was to be served. The only inference which can be drawn is this that the authority probably wanted to demonstrate that principle of natural justice stood complied with. Therefore, in my considered view the impugned orders are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Annexure P-5 dated 5.5.2012 and Annexure P-6 dated 24.5.2012 are quashed and set aside. Therefore, in my considered view the impugned orders are violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and thus liable to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Annexure P-5 dated 5.5.2012 and Annexure P-6 dated 24.5.2012 are quashed and set aside. It is clarified that the services of the petitioners shall not be dispensed with or terminated by the respondents except in accordance with law. 3. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms, so also pending miscellaneous applications if any.