CWP No.9322 of 2008 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.9322 of 2008
Date of decision 10.12.2008
Hawa Singh .....Appellant
versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mehtab S. Gill.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. Kannan.
Present: Mr. S. S. Godara, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ajay Kumar Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
K. Kannan, J.
1. Termination of the services of Sweeper after regularisation but
without any specific charge, is the subject of challenge before us. The
petitioner’s case is squarely covered by the batch of writ petitions disposed
of by this Hon’ble High Court on 22.7.2008 in Angrej Singh versus State of
Haryana and others in CWP No.6539 of 2008, dated 22.7.2008 and other
cases and we adopt the same reasoning as has been done by Division Bench
of this Court. The decision makes a specific reference to the fact that all the
petitioners covered therein had been taken in service as Sweeper-cum-
Chowkidar and later regularized on 2.2.2006. They had been served with
show cause notices against termination on instructions from Superior
Officers and delivered with termination orders as if it were a turn-key
process and without framing any specific charges as to the delinquency or
CWP No.9322 of 2008 -2-
the nature of illegality purported to have been effected at the time of initial
appointment. The Bench has also examined the State’s existing policy of
regularisation of persons, who had been in service for a long time before the
dispensation in Secretary, State of Karnataka versus Uma Devi reported in
2006 (4) SCC 1 and to the earlier ruling of this Court in CWP No.5770 of
2008 titled Shila Devi versus State of Haryana decided on 7.4.2008, that
Sweepers could not be terminated without any proper enquiry or any
charges. We adopt the same reasoning as made in the above batch of cases.
2. We also add another ground namely that the show cause notices
themselves are an expression of pre-determined decision to dispense with
the service of the petitioner. The Principal had been earlier served with a
letter on 7.4.2008 from the District Education Officer which directs the
Principal to terminate 198 Class IV employees after adopting the process of
personal hearing. The letter also directs the compliance of the action to be
sent immediately. The Principal who had, therefore, issued show cause
notices was merely carrying out the pre-determined decision to terminate
the service which vitiates the entire inquiry as farcical. It has been held by
the decision of this Hon’ble Court in Pawan Kumar versus State of
Haryana and others in CWP No.6141 of 2005 that where there had already
been a decision to terminate the services of an employee, the issuance of
show cause notice was only an empty formality and the Court would be
justified in its intervention even at that stage without directing the party to
go through the inquiry pursuant to the notice. We fully endorse the
proposition of law as stated above.
3. For all the above reasons, the writ petition is allowed and
impugned order of termination dated 23.5.2006 is quashed.
CWP No.9322 of 2008 -3-
The petition is allowed on the above terms.
(MEHTAB S. GILL)
JUDGE
(K. KANNAN)
10.12.2008. JUDGE
A. Kaundal