IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-14257-2026 DECIDED ON: 08.05.2026 KAUSHALYA DEVI .....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS .....RESPONDENT(S)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Vicky Chauhan, Advocate and Mr. Anil Kumar Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s)

SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)

Prayer

1. The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned termination order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-3) and letter dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-8) issued by respondents.

Facts

2. The facts of the present case are that the petitioner, who had been serving as an Anganwadi Worker since the year 1988 at Village Bagwala, Block Raipur Rani, District Panchkula, was issued a show cause notice dated 30.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) alleging that she had failed to report the death of one pregnant woman namely Smt. Manpreet Kaur, who allegedly died on 01.04.2025 during pregnancy. The petitioner submitted a reply explaining that she had visited the house of the deceased in February and March, 2025, however, neither the deceased nor her family disclosed the factum of pregnancy. It was further stated that during the relevant period, the petitioner was also facing personal hardship owing to the demise of her mother.

3. Despite the said explanation, the services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure P-3). Thereafter, the petitioner submitted various representations seeking reinstatement and also appeared in inquiry proceedings conducted by the authorities. However, vide communication dated 11.03.2026 (Annexure P-8), the respondents upheld the termination order.

4. Aggrieved against the aforesaid orders, the present writ petition has been filed seeking quashing of the termination order dated 20.05.2025 and the subsequent communication dated 11.03.2026 along with consequential benefits.

Contentions:

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned orders are arbitrary, non-speaking and violative of the principles of natural justice, as the detailed explanation submitted by the petitioner was not properly considered. It is argued that there is no cogent or legally admissible evidence to establish that the petitioner had prior knowledge of the pregnancy of the deceased or that she had intentionally concealed the same.

6. Counsel further submits that the deceased and her family themselves concealed the pregnancy and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be fastened with strict liability. It is also contended that matters relating to pregnancy registration and medical monitoring primarily fall within the domain of the Health Department and ASHA workers and no material such as ultrasound report or postmortem report was produced to substantiate the allegations. Learned counsel further argues that the petitioner had rendered about 37 years of unblemished service and the extreme punishment of termination is wholly disproportionate to the alleged lapse. It is additionally submitted that another similarly situated employee namely Sonia, MPHW, was reinstated whereas the petitioner has been subjected to discriminatory treatment.

7. Ms. Mayuri Lakhanpal Kalia, DAG Haryana, having been served with an advance copy of the petition, while accepting noice on behalf of the respondents, has produced a copy of inquiry report dated 13.05.2025, which is taken on record as document ‘A’. A copy of the same has been furnished to the counsel opposite. In support of this document, learned State counsel submits that after due inquiry, the petitioner was found to be negligent and only then her services were terminated.

Analysis

8. After considering the rival submissions and perusing the record, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition. The admitted factual position is that the petitioner was working as an Anganwadi Worker in the concerned area since the year 1988 and