SADHNA MITTAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present civil writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing of order dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure P-5) whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated.

(2.) Pursuant to advertisement for the post of Protection Officercum- Child Marriage Prohibition Officer, the petitioner was given appointment letter on 11.11.2008 (P-1) and the petitioner joined on 17.11.2018. The petitioner was also given appreciation letter for his excellent work and conduct (P-2). Vide letter dated 16.11.2011 (P-3), the Government has approved the extension of the contracts for further period of three years. The Government of Haryana has granted extension for three years i.e up to 16.11.2017, vide letter dated 16.12014 (P-4). However, vide order dated 23.10.2015 (P-5), the services of the petitioner were ordered to be terminated on the ground that the petitioner was involved in a criminal case registered vide F.I.R No 604 dated 5.8.2015 Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was appointed on 11.11.2008 as Protection Officer-cum-Child Marriage Prohibition Officer (Female) on contract basis. After registration of FIR No.604 dated 05.08.2015, her services has been terminated vide order dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure P-5). Before registration of said FIR, there was no complaint against her. Thereafter, she approached this Court by filing CWP No.23961 of 2014 with a prayer that she should be allowed to continue her services, as she had served the department for more than three year without any complaint. In the said petition, an interim order was passed on 09.03.2015, whereby she was allowed to continue till regularly selected candidate is available to replace her. Despite the above said order, her services have been terminated vide order dated 23.10.2015. Moreover, after investigation in criminal case, challan (Annexure P-6) has already been presented against one Yogesh, who was a clerk in the office and the petitioner has been found to be innocent as nothing was found against her.

(3.) Learned counsel inter alia contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the petitioner was working since 2008 and has also been awarded appreciation letter. Further, challan was present against one Yogesh, who was clerk in the office and the petitioner has been found innocent.