Punjab-Haryana High Court
Neha vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 10 January, 2024
Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002642
CWP-6334-2018 & -1- 2024:PHHC:002642
CWP-6992-2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
217 (02 cases) (1)CWP-6334-2018
Date of Decision :10.01.2024
Neha ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
(2)CWP-6992-2018
Rakesh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI
Present: Mr. Satbir Singh Gill, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-6334-2018.
Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate for
Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the petitioner
in CWP-6992-2018.
Mr. Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana
assisted by Mr. Manjeet, Assistant, O/o Chief Principal,
Chief Conservator of Forest, Panchkula, Haryana.
Mr. Abhishek Yadav, Advocate for respondents No. 5 to 8
in CWP-6334-2018.
***
Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)
1. By this common order, above mentioned two writ petitions are
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002642
CWP-6334-2018 & -2- 2024:PHHC:002642
CWP-6992-2018
being disposed as both the writ petitions involve the same question of law on
similar facts.
1. Challenge in the present petitions is to the show cause notice,
which has been issued to the petitioners for terminating of their services on
the ground that the petitioners were selected in the wrong category and,
therefore, their services needs to be terminated so as to accommodate the
other candidates belonging to the category in which the petitioners have
actually been selected and appointed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that two candidates
namely, Manjit and Shyam, who were to be accommodated, have already
been appointed and petitioners are still continuing in service hence,
especially when there is no misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners
and it was only the respondents who had passed an order appointing the
petitioners in the category of BCB instead of BCA and the petitioners are
continuing in service since 2014, the petitioners be allowed to continue in
service.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that bare
perusal of the impugned orders would show that services of the petitioners
were terminated without following due process as envisaged under law and
without giving any opportunity of hearing, services of the petitioners have
been terminated by the respondents by passing the impugned orders
unilaterally and that too without even seeking any explanation from the
petitioners, such action on the part of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents concedes the factum that
before passing the impugned orders, no notice was given to the petitioners.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002642
CWP-6334-2018 & -3- 2024:PHHC:002642
CWP-6992-2018
through the record with their able assistance.
6. It is a settled principle of law settled by this Court in CWP-
16486-2020 titled as Pardeep vs. State of Haryana and others decided on
09.11.2022, that any executive order, which is to be passed, has to be passed
by observing the rule of natural justice in case any prejudice is to be caused
to an employee and opportunity of hearing has to be given to an employee
before any action is to be taken.
7. Further, action of the respondents terminating the services of
the petitioners without giving them due opportunity of hearing is contrary to
the settled principle of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in
Civil Appeal No.9417-2019 tilted as M/s Daffodils Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
and another vs. State of U.P. and another, decided on 13.12.2019 and
Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Ltd through its
Secretary/Mahaprandhak and another vs. Raghunath Singh Rana and
others, 2016(12) SCC 204, decided on 17.05.2016. Relevant paragraphs of
the judgment are as under:-
"15. In the present case, even if one assumes that Surender
Chaudhary, the accused in the pending criminal case was
involved and had sought to indulge in objectionable activities,
that ipso facto could not have resulted in unilateral action of the
kind which the State resorted to- against Daffodils, which was
never granted any opportunity of hearing or a chance to represent
against the impugned order. If there is one constant lodestar that
lights the judicial horizon in this country, it is this: that no one
can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a
minimum opportunity of hearing, and prior intimation of such a
move. This principle is too well entrenched in the legal ethos of
this country to be ignored, as the state did, in this case.
16. The High Court, in the opinion of this court, fell into error in holding
that in matters of award of public contracts, the scope of inquiry in judicial
review is limited. Granted, such jurisdiction is extremely circumscribed;
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002642
CWP-6334-2018 & -4- 2024:PHHC:002642
CWP-6992-2018
no doubt the court had refused to grant relief to Daffodils against its plea
of wrongful rejection of its tender. However, what the impugned judgment
clearly overlooks is that the action of the state, not to procure indefinitely,
on an assumption of complicity by Daffodils, was in flagrant violation of
principles of natural justice."
7. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances hereinbefore
coupled with the settled principle of law, present petitions are allowed and
impugned orders are set aside with liberty to the respondents that in case at
this stage any action needs to be taken against the petitioners, the
respondents will take the said action in accordance with law by giving due
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
8. Copy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
January 10, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:002642
4 of 4
