WRIA/11556/2025 of SMT. EKTA VERMA Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 11556 of 2025
Court No. - 6
HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.
1. Heard Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
2. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition inter-alia with the
prayer to quash the impugned order dated 29.05.2025 passed by the
Respondent No.2 and impugned order dated 25.04.2025, Order no.-C-37
passed by respondent no.3 (annexure no.1 and 2 to the writ petition), by
which the recommendation has been made by the District Probation
Officer, Kanpur Nagar to the Respondent No.2 to remove the petitioner
from her services.
3. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition are that the petitioner was
appointed as contractual employee in the year 2012 and since then she is
working and getting her salary. The letter dated 25.04.2025 was written
by the Chief Probation Officer, Kanpur Nagar to the Respondent no.2 to
remove the petitioner from her services.
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid, order dated 29.05.2025 was passed by the
Respondent No.2 terminating the services of the petitioner with
immediate effect. Relevant portion of which reads as follows:-
"्शीमती एकता वमार् ्षारा अपने प्ऴ िदनांक 26.05.2025 क े माध्यम से उ्व सम्बन्ध में
अपना 'स्प्िीकरण' ्ऺस्तुत िकया गया । ्ऺस्तुत स्पस्टीकरण प्ऴ का गहनता से पिर्षण िकया
गया । स्प्िीकरण प्ऴ क े पिर्षण से स्प्ि होता है की प्ऴ में ऐसा कोइ नवीन तथ्य उिल्लिखत
नहीं िकया है जो की जाँच आख्या को ्ऺभािवत करता हो । "
Versus
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raghavendra Singh, Suvarna Singh,
Upendra Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Smt. Ekta Verma
.....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
5. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, instructions dated
26.08.2025 is already on record.
6. Heard Shri Upendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and perused the
averments made in the writ petition as well as the instructions provided by
the respondent no.2.
7. From perusal of the aforesaid, it is clear that though in response to the
show cause notice, a detailed reply was submitted by the petitioner but
without considering the same, order impugned has been passed.
8. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order
impugned has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice and
the same is liable to be set aside and is hereby quashed.
9. Respondent No.2 namely Director, Women Welfare, U.P., Lucknow is
directed to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law after
considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, most expeditiously and
preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of
certified copy of this order.
10. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed. No order
as to costs.
April 23, 2026
Swati
WRIA No. 11556 of 2025
2
(Prakash Padia,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SWATI PATHAK
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad