KUNTA DEVI Vs. STATE OF HP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by Annexure P-9, order, whereby her appointment as Anganwari worker has been terminated. It is seen from Annexure P-9, order passed by the Child Development Project Officer that the termination is only on the basis of enquiry. But according to the petitioner, she was not participated in the enquiry and she does not know the outcome of the enquiry, if any, conducted either. It is also submitted that no show cause notice whatsoever was ever issued. Prima facie, we find force in the contention. If an enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner and if that report is relied upon for terminating her services, the officer concerned should have issued at least a show cause notice asking for explanation disclosing to her the contents of the enquiry, in case it is otherwise departmental enquiry so that the petitioner would have got an opportunity to submit her version. In that view of the matter, we set aside Annexure P-9 and consequential Annexure P-12, without prejudice to the liberty to the 3rd respondent to take appropriate action, if required, in accordance with law.

(2.) THE writ petition is disposed of, so also the pending application. Copy dasti.