SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 9S WPSS No. 668 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Ravi Babulkar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, D.A.G. for the State/respondent nos. 1 and 2. The challenge in this petition is made to the termination order dated 28.03.2025, issued by the respondent no.3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is the case of the petitioner that she has been working as Assistant Teacher in Savitri Shiksha Niketan Junior High School, Harrawala, Doiwala, District Dehradun (“the School”). The Authorised Controller of the School served a charge sheet on her and the Authorised Controller himself conducted an inquiry. Thereafter, multiple inquiries were conducted and multiple charge sheets were submitted. Finally, the Authorisied Controller of the School himself passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the impugned order is manifestly bad in the eye of law because it is the Authorised Controller who served charge sheet on the petitioner; it is the Authorised Controller who himself conducted an inquiry; and it is the Authorised Controller who himself passed the impugned termination order. He would submit that all the three tasks cannot be done by one and the same entity. Learned State counsel would submit that the matter may be remanded back so that the respondents Authorities may start denovo disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the matter may not be remanded. It is admitted that the Authorised Controller of the School has served the charge sheet. It is also admitted that the Authorised Controller of the School has conducted an inquiry and it is also admitted that the Authorised Controller himself has passed the termination order. It leads to only one conclusion that the impugned termination order is bad in the eye of law. Therefore, it deserves to be set aside. Impugned termination order is set aside. The writ petition is allowed accordingly. However, the respondents shall be free to take such disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner denovo as is permissible under the law. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.05.2025 Jitendra