The main legal point established in the judgment is that confirmed employees cannot be terminated abruptly and arbitrarily without following the procedure of law, and the principles of natural justice must be adhered to in cases of termination of services.

JUDGMENT :

The issues involved in all these writ petitions are same, similar and identical and as such they have been tagged and heard together on various dates and are being disposed of by this common order.

Prayers made in writ petitions:

2. In W.P.(S). No. 1842 of 2019 petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 19.03.2019, as contained in memo No. 245, issued by respondent No. 5, by which show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioner. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing the letter dated 12.04.2019, issued by respondent No. 4 by which the petitioner has been terminated from service with immediate effect.

3. In W.P.(S). No. 1007 of 2019, prayer has been made for quashing the letter bearing memo No. 554, dated 04.02.2019, issued by respondent No. 2 and the consequential letter bearing memo No. 182/Vi, dt. 16.02.2019, issued by respondent No. 4, whereby the petitioner has been issued show-cause and in the same letter, it has been directed to the respondent No. 4 by respondent No. 2 to terminate the petitioners from services, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of letter dated 04.02.2019. Further prayer has been made for quashing the letter dated 02.04.2019, issued by respondent No. 5, whereby the petitioners have been relieved from services w.e.f. 02.04.2019.

4. In W.P.(S). No. 1845 of 2019, petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 09.03.2019, as contained in memo No. 134, issued by respondent No. 4, by which a show-cause notice has been issued to the petitioners and further prayer has been made for quashing the order contained in memo No. 277/Astha. Dated 24.07.2019, issued by respondent No. 4, by which petitioners have been terminated from services with immediate effect.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

5. On 08.01.1989, an advertisement was floated by the respondents for appointment of Gram Sevika. The petitioners having the requisite qualifications, applied for the same. Thereafter, following the due procedure of law, the petitioners were appointed against the vacant and sanctioned post of Gram Sevika on different dates and subsequently, their services also got confirmed. Since the date of their appointment the petitioners were discharging their duties to the full satisfaction of the respondent-authorities and no complaint whatsoever was made against them, meaning thereby that the petitioners have clean service record. However, all of a sudden vide letter dated 18.03.2019 (in W.P.S. No. 1842/19); vide letter dated 04.02.2019 and consequential letter dated 16.02.2019 (in W.P.S. No. 1007 of 2019); & letter dated 09.03.2019 (in W.P.S. No. 1845/19), show-cause notices were issued to the respective petitioners seeking their reply as to why not their services be terminated. In compliance of the said show-cause notices, the petitioners submitted their reply. It is the case of the petitioners that they served the department for more than 20-30 years and also received the benefits of ACP/MACP, treating the petitioners as regular employees. Altogether 52 persons were appointed on the post of Gram Sevika but in the same transaction but the impugned show-cause notice have been issued against the petitioners only, which shows that the respondents have adopted pick and choose method. Thereafter, being not satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioners, by the impugned orders, the petitioners have been terminated from services with immediate effect. It is the case of the petitioners that without following the cardinal principles of natural justice and without initiating a full-fledged departmental enquiry, the impugned orders of termination were issued against the petitioners, who have served the department with full dignity and sincerity, for 20-30 years.

Hence, the petitioners have approached this Court for redressal of their grievances.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

6. It has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that from perusal of impugned show-cause notice, it