A.N. Jindal, J. - (1.) RAM Kaur -respondent, serving as Anganwari worker since 1985, was turned out on the basis of sham/summary inquiry dated 18.11.1991, which was challenged by her by way of filing a civil suit, which was decreed in her favour on 15.1.1998. The appeal filed by the State was also dismissed on 9.2.1999. Hence the State is in this second appeal. Substantively, the facts are that Ram Kaur/plaintiff was employed as Anganwari worker by the Director, Social Welfare, Haryana in the year 1985, after completing the selection process. It was further alleged by her that without following proper procedure and without affording her any opportunity of hearing, her services were terminated by the appellants in terms of orders No. 74719/CD -3/SK -1 dated 18.11.1991 and 906 -907 dated 5.12.1991.
(2.) THE appellants/State contested the suit, by filing written statement. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial court: - 1. Whether the order No. 74719/CD -3/SK -91 dated 18.11.1991 passed by defendant No. 2 and Order No. 906 -907 dated 5.12.1991 passed by the defendant No. 4 are illegal, null and void? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff has no right to file the present suit? OPD. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD 3. WHETHER the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 4.WHETHER the civil court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD 5.RELIEF .
(3.) The main issue in the case was, "whether order dated 18.11.1991 passed by defendant No. 2 -Director, Women and Child Development Haryana, Chandigarh, was valid and passed in conformity with the rules and procedure and in accordance with the principles of natural justice - The trial court observed that there was nothing in the inquiry report Ex. P6 about the presence of the plaintiff during the course of the inquiry. Even the report does not indicate the signatures of the plaintiff. As such, it concluded that the inquiry was not conducted in the presence of the plaintiff. The Court further observed that there was nothing to show if she was provided an opportunity to defend her case. No reasons for such grave penalty were recorded. The appellate court also recorded the consistent opinion.;