Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SMT. EKTA VERMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The termination order is quashed as it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice.

Summary

The petitioner, a contractual employee since 2012, was served a show‑cause notice and subsequently a termination order dated 29‑05‑2025 by the Director, Women Welfare, U.P., without her reply being considered. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking quashal of the termination order, alleging violation of natural justice. The High Court examined the petition and noted that the respondent had ignored the detailed reply submitted by the petitioner. It held that the order was passed in breach of the principles of natural justice and therefore must be set aside. The Court quashed the termination order and directed the respondent to pass a fresh order after duly considering the petitioner’s reply within six weeks, and allowed the writ petition without costs.

Issues considered

  • Whether the termination order passed by the Director, Women Welfare, U.P. violated the principles of natural justice by not considering the petitioner's reply to the show‑cause notice.
  • Whether the impugned order should be quashed and a fresh order be directed.

Subjects

  • termination of contractual employee
  • natural justice
  • show‑cause notice
  • quashing order
  • writ petition
  • administrative law

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                             WRIT - A No. - 11556 of 2025

Smt. Ekta Verma
                                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                           Versus

State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)              : Raghavendra Singh, Suvarna Singh,
                                         Upendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)              : C.S.C.

Court No. - 6
                        HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

1. Heard Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the
prayer to quash the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the
Respondent No.2 and impugned order dated 25.04.2025, Order no.-C-37
passed by respondent no.3 (annexure no.1 and 2 to the writ petition), by
which the recommendation has been made by the District Probation
Officer, Kanpur Nagar to the Respondent No.2 to remove the petitioner
from her services.

3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was
appointed as contractual employee in the year 2012 and since then she is
working and getting her salary. The letter dated 25.04.2025 was written
by the Chief Probation Officer, Kanpur Nagar to the Respondent no.2 to
remove the petitioner from her services.

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid, order dated 29.05.2025 was passed by the
Respondent No.2 terminating the services of the petitioner with
immediate effect. Relevant portion of which reads as follows:-

     "्शीमती एकता वमार् ्षारा अपने प्ऴ िदनांक 26.05.2025 के माध्यम से उ्व सम्बन्ध में
     अपना 'स्प्िीकरण' ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया । ्ऺस्तुत स्पस्टीकरण प्ऴ का गहनता से पिर्षण िकया
     गया । स्प्िीकरण प्ऴ के पिर्षण से स्प्ि होता है की प्ऴ में ऐसा कोइ नवीन तथ्य उिल्लिखत
     नहीं िकया है जो की जाँच आख्या को ्ऺभािवत करता हो । "
                                                                                           WRIA No. 11556 of 2025
                                                                   2


                                    5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, instructions dated
                                    26.08.2025 is already on record.

                                    6. Heard Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
                                    learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the
                                    averments made in the writ petition as well as the instructions provided by
                                    the respondent no.2.

                                    7. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that though in response to the
                                    show cause notice, a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner but
                                    without considering the same, order impugned has been passed.

                                    8. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order
                                    impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and
                                    the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby quashed.

                                    9. Respondent No.2 namely Director, Women Welfare, U.P., Lucknow is
                                    directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after
                                    considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, most expeditiously and
                                    preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of
                                    certified copy of this order.

                                    10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order
                                    as to costs.



                                                                                            (Prakash Padia,J.)
                                    April 23, 2026
                                    Swati




Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.