HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 13763 of 2025 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 1, 3, 4 & 5 and Mr. Pradeep Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 6. 2. Present petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 09.10.2025 whereby petitioner's services as a Teacher/Warden in the institution concerned on contractual basis has been terminated. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that a bare perusal of impugned order will make it evident that certain complaints were received against petitioner with regard to misbehaviour with children. It is submitted that a three-member Committee was thereafter constituted to enquire into allegations and a preliminary enquiry report was also submitted on 08.10.2025 finding petitioner guilty of charges levelled against her. It is submitted that aforesaid report forms the basis of impugned order but it would be evident that the order has been passed on an ex parte basis without proving or corroborating allegations levelled against petitioner. It is submitted that only reply submitted by petitioner has been considered and that too not in its correct perspective. 4. Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devesh Singh, Adarsh Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Tiwari Smt. Sudha Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Director General , School Edu. Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) petitioner being only a contractual employee, a full-fledgd enquiry is not required to corroborate allegations levelled against her. He has also adverted to Clause 11 of the contract entered into between petitioner and the department to submit that petitioner's services can be terminated in case of misbehaviour with children or on grounds indicated in aforesaid clause. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that impugned order has been passed terminating petitioner's contractual employment with opposite parties on ground of allegations levelled against her of misbehaviour with children. The order ex-facie indicates to be stigmatic in nature and having been passed on the basis of allegations levelled against petitioner. The order also indicates that it has been passed on the basis of report dated 08.10.2025 submitted by a three-member Committee. It is also evident from the order impugned that no oral enquiry whatsoever appears to have been held permitting petitioner to participate in the same and to cross-examine the persons who were introduced as witnesses. The order therefore has clearly been passed on an ex parte basis so far as enquiry proceedings are concerned. The order impugned also takes into account only the reply submitted by petitioner on 08.10.2025 but rejects the same only on ground that petitioner was unable to produce any evidence in her defence. The authority has completely failed to notice the fact that in case of such allegations as have been levelled against petitioner, it was the duty of the authorities primarily to establish charges levelled against petitioner, which could have been done only by oral evidence and providing opportunity of hearing to petitioner to participate in the proceedings. 6. Such a course of action having not been undertaken by opposite parties, vitiates the impugned order dated 09.10.2025, which is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh but only after conducting regular enquiry and permitting petitioner to participate in the same. Petitioner shall also be given opportunity to cross-examine WRIA No. 13763 of 2025 2 the witnesses and to refute evidence submitted against her by the department. Aforesaid proceedings shall be conducted expeditiously within a period of one month from the date of submission of a certified copy of this order before authority concerned. 7. This Court is conscious of the fact that services of petitioner are only contractual in nature and therefore a fullfledged enquiry may not have been required before terminating such services, which would in fact be governed by terms and conditions of the contract. However, in the considered opinion of this Court, once opposite parties have passed the impugned order on stigmatic basis and after conducting enquiry against petitioner and recording of a finding against her with regard to allegations levelled, it would be incumbent upon opposite parties to adhere to principles of natural justice prior to passing of any order to the detriment of petitioner. 8. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Reinstatement of petitioner shall be subject to final decision taken by authorities concerned after the enquiry proceedings. December 2, 2025 kvg/- WRIA No. 13763 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench