NEELAM MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Shri Dileep Kumar Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 5.2.2009 by which she has been asked to show cause against the misconduct committed by her as well as by her husband with the officers of the department. There are some other charges also which need to be explained by the petitioner. Simultaneously, the services of the petitioner have also been dispensed with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that under a show cause notice when time was granted to her for filing reply then the services of the petitioner could not have been dispensed with before the reply was submitted and the officer had considered the reply. Hence, the order is arbitrary and without application of mind and the order deserves to be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel has pointed out that the petitioner is not a regular and confirmed employee of the State Government, as such, no service rules are applied and under the circumstances of clear misconduct, it was open for the authorities to dispense with the services of the petitioner. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions and I find that the order has been passed in haste and without application of mind. No useful purpose can be served by issuing show cause if the resultant decision is already taken before a reply can come forward. On this ground alone, the order deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, I quash the order dated 5.2.2009 passed by Bal Vikas Pariyojna Adhikari, Rupayee Deeh, Gonda, annexed as annexure No.1 to he writ petition. However, it will be open for the opposite parties to take appropriate action in the matter as permissible under law observing the principles of natural justice, if not taken already. With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of finally.