- (1.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently submitted that the present petition has been preferred, mainly for the reasons that an arbitrary, unilateral and capricious order has been passed by respondent no.7 dated December 27, 2008, at Annexure 5 to the memo of present petition, whereby, the services of the present petitioners have been brought to an end and that too, without giving any notice and without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioners. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that having been appointed in the month of June, 2007 as Anganbari Sevika, the petitioners resumed their duties and worked as such, on the said post. Though they have been paid their salary for one and half year, without being given any opportunity of being heard to them, the services of the petitioners have been brought to an end.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that a very conscious enquiry has been conducted by the representatives of the Member of Legislative Assembly and the Member of Parliament and only thereafter, the services of the petitioners have been brought to an end. The said enquiry is very authentic and, as such, no need of any hearing of the petitioners is required and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by respondent no.7, at Annexure 5, dated December 27, 2008, as well as the basis, upon which the impugned order has been passed i.e. Annexure 6 to the memo of present petition, is also quashed, for the reasons that there is a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. It ought to have been kept in mind that before passing an order, terminating the services of any employee, the procedure, established at law, ought to have been followed and complied with and bare minimum requirement is issuance of notice and hearing of the petitioner is a must and the enquiry, conducted in closed doors, without allowing the petitioners to file their objections or to say anything, which is in their favour, is no enquiry at all, in the eyes of law Even if the enquiry is conducted by highly respectable members, the same cannot be the basis for termination of services.
(3.) IN the facts of the present case, several points have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners for quashing of the impugned order at Annexure 5 to the memo of present petition, but, suffice it will be for this Court to say that though Annexure 5 and Annexure 6 to the memo of present petition (to the extent to which it apply to the petitioners) are quashed and set aside, only on the ground that they are passed without giving any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. I am keeping rest of the arguments of the petitioners open.;