Anita vs State Of Punjab And Ors

Nirmaljit Kaur, J

The prayer in the present writ petition is for quashing of the order dated 17.12.2019 (Annexure P-14) as well as the letter dated 9.7.2020 (Annexure

P-17) whereby a decision has been taken by the respondents to not allow the petitioner to continue in service on the post of Art and Craft Teacher

and the cancellation of the appointment has been recommended without taking into consideration the merit position of the petitioner and without

following the principle of natural justice as also by ignoring the merit of the petitioner.

A perusal of the impugned order Annexure P-14 shows that the petitioner was required to submit his reply to the notice dated 17.12.2019. The

petitioner duly submitted his reply on 21.12.2019, which is placed on record as Annexure P-15. Thereafter, the respondents issued another letter dated

9.7.2020 Annexure P-17 directing the petitioner to appear for personal hearing on 13.7.2020 but before the petitioner could appear for hearing, she

filed the present writ petition and the same has come up for hearing only today i.e. 15.7.2020. Meanwhile, the petitioner is stated to have participated

in the personal hearing.

The grievance of the petitioner is two fold.

It is contended that the earlier impugned order dated 17.12.2019 shows that the respondents had already taken a decision to cancel the appointment.

Even Annexure P-17 dated 9.7.2020 shows that the Higher Officials have already taken a decision and have recommended for cancellation of the

appointment. In these circumstances, the filing of the reply and personal hearing is only a mere formality.

A perusal of both the orders Annexures P-14 and P-17 speak for themselves. It is evident that some kind of decision and recommendations have

already been made even prior to the issuing of the alleged notice dated 17.12.2019 for filing reply and letter dated 9.7.2020 granting personal hearing.

Be that as it may, it is otherwise admitted that no final order has been passed by the appropriate authority.

Accordingly, at this stage, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the appropriate authority to take a final decision only after considering the

reply and the personal hearing which has already been granted and shall not be biased by the alleged recommendation made by some authority for

cancelling the appointment of the petitioner.

This Court has no doubt that all the contentions as raised herein in the present writ petition shall also be taken into consideration before taking a final

decision by way of a speaking order. The petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the said decision/speaking order in case the said decision or speaking

order is not favourable or adverse to the petitioner.