Allahabad High Court
SMT DEEPANJALYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- PRAKASH PADIA
Holding
The termination order dated 30 July 2025 is quashed as it was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice.
Summary
The petitioner, a contractual Protection Officer, was terminated by the District Probation Officer on 30 July 2025 following a complaint alleging a demand for a bribe. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the termination, arguing that no notice or opportunity to be heard was provided and that the termination was issued before the inquiry committee, constituted by the District Magistrate, could submit its report. The court examined the record and found that the termination order was passed in a hurried manner, without complying with the principles of natural justice and without jurisdiction, as the committee’s findings were pending. Consequently, the court held that the order was illegal and should be set aside. The court quashed the termination order and directed the District Probation Officer to issue a fresh order within three months.
Issues considered
- Whether the termination order passed without notice and hearing violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether the District Probation Officer had jurisdiction to terminate the petitioner before the inquiry committee’s report.
- Whether the termination order should be quashed.
Subjects
- termination
- natural justice
- inquiry committee
- contractual employee
- bribe allegation
- procedural fairness
- writ petition
- quashing order
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 14103 of 2025
Smt Deepanjaly
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anish Kumar Sinha, Gaurav Dwivedi,
Ram Prakash Dwivedi, Vinayak Varma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinayak Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel.
2. Vide order dated 23.09.2025, four weeks time is granted to file counter
affidavit. Thereafter the matter was listed before the Registrar who vide
order dated 21.01.2026 granted two weeks further time to file counter
affidavit. Subsequent to the same, the matter was listed before the Court
and this Court vide order dated 27.04.2026 granted last opportunity to file
counter affidavit but till date no counter affidavit has been filed.
3. The petitioner has preferred the present petition with the prayer to
quash the order 30.07.2025 passed by the District Probation Officer,
Baghpat/respondent No.5, copy of the same is appended as Annexur No.1
to the writ petition. By the aforesaid order, the petitioner was terminated
making serious allegations against him.
4.From perusal of the record, it reveals that the petitioner was appointed
on contractual basis vide order dated 25.07.2016 on the post of Protection
Officer and he started working and getting his salary. On 19.07.2025 one
Ravi Thakur filed a complaint against the petitioner in respect of demand
of Rs.1,00,000/- as bribe for facilitating appointment through outsourcing
in Mahila Kalyan Vibhag, Baghpat. It is argued that the petitioner had no
official authority or role in the process of appointment. A show cause
notice issued to the petitioner on 21.07.2025 by the respondent No.5.
Reply to the aforesaid notice has been submitted by the petitioner on
24.07.2025 denying the allegations made in the show cause notice. By
order dated 24.07.2025, the respondent No.5 informed the petitioner that a
committee had been constituted by the District Magistrate,
WRIA No. 14103 of 2025
2
Baghpat/respondent No.4 for inquiry in the matter of the petitioner.
5. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that when the
petitioner came to know regarding the constitution of the aforesaid
committee, he submitted representations on 25.07.2025 and 30.07.2025
addressed to the respondent No.4 to permit the petitioner to participate in
the inquiry. It is argued that without waiting the report of the aforesaid
Committee, the District Probation Officer, Baghpat/respondent No.5
passed the order impugned on 30.07.2025 terminating the services of the
petitioner. It is argued that the order impugned has been passed without
providing any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to place
his explanation regarding the allegations made in the order of termination.
It is argued that the order impugned is stigmatic in nature and the same
has been passed without waiting the inquiry report of the Committee
constituted by the respondent No.4. It is argued that once the committee
has been constituted, the respondent No.5 has no jurisdiction or authority
to pass order impugned without inquiry report, therefore, the order
impugned is bad in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. From perusal of the record, it is clear that for conducting inquiry, a
committee had been constituted by the respondent No.4 for inquiry but
respondent No.5 without waiting the report of the aforesaid Committee
passed the order impugned in hurried manner. Further no notice or
opportunity of hearing has been provided to the petitioner and the order
impugned has been passed in complete violation of principles of natural
justice, the order impugned is liable to be set aside the same is hereby
quashed.
8. The District Probation Officer, Baghpat/respondent No.5 is directed to
pass fresh order in the matter within three month from the date of
production of certified copy before him.
9. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.
(Prakash Padia,J.)
May 14, 2026
saqlain
Digitally signed by :-
SYED MOHAMMAD SAQLAIN HAIDER
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…