JUDGMENT
Shiv Kumar Sharma, J.
1. The matter has been heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for parties.
2. The husband of the petitioner was a Class-IV employee who died on 30 May, 2000 while working in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Tonk. The petitioner thereafter moved an application seeking employment on compassionate ground in place of her husband and she was appointed against vacant post of Class-IV in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Tonk under the provisions contained in Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short ‘1996 Rules’) vide order dated 3.7.2000.
3. The petitioner thereafter was transferred to the Court of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, Tonk vide order dated 17.8.2000. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 4.9.2000, but subsequently vide order dated 16.9.2000 the suspension order was revoked. A charge sheet under Rule 17 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1958 (for short ‘CCA Rules’) was issued to petitioner on 4.9.2000. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge sheet. The petitioner was given warning by Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate, Tonk vide order dated 29.9.2000. Some more warning letters were also issued to petitioner and finally vide order dated 31.10.2000 the services of petitioner were terminated with immediate effect. In this instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the aforequoted termination order.
4. The respondents submitted return to writ petition and pleaded that the services of petitioner were rightly terminated as she was not a regular employee and her appointment was only for a period of three months and it was specifically stated in the appointment order that the services of petitioner will be terminated if not found satisfactory without any notice.
5. I have heard the rival submissions and carefully scanned the material on record.
6. Mr. Ashok Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Ramchandra v. The Executive Engineer and Ors., 1999(1) WLC (Raj.) 258 and Ajay Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Ann, 1997(3) WLC (Raj.) 611 and canvassed that the appointment of petitioner under the provisions of compassionate rules is a regular appointment for all purposes.
7. Per contra, Mr. R.P. Meena, learned counsel for the respondents supported the impugned termination order.
8. It is no doubt true that the departmental proceeding under Rule 17 of the CCA Rules was initiated against the petitioner and certain warning letters were issued to her. The allegations of insubordination were levelled against the petitioner from time to time. But before terminating the services of the petitioner no disciplinary enquiry was initiated.
9. A look at the impugned order of termination Annexure-15, demonstrates that before terminating the services of petitioner neither the opportunity of showing cause was afforded to the petitioner nor she was served with charge sheet. As the petitioner was a regular employee, appointed under 1996 Rules, her services could not have been terminated without holding her guilty of misconduct. The impugned order of termination which was mechanically passed, stands vitiated being violative of Article. 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. For the reasons mentioned above, I allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order of termination of services of petitioner dated 31.10.2000 (Annex.15). The respondents are directed to reinstate the services of petitioner forthwith. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner shall be entitled only to 50% back wages. Sixty days time is granted to respondents to ensure the compliance of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.