CWP No. 380-2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 380-2021 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.07.2026 Sangeeta Malhotra ....Petitioner versus Punjab University through Vice Chancellor and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rajesh Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition is filed impugning order dated 07.12.2020 passed by respondent No. 1, whereby services of the petitioner were terminated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the services of petitioner were terminated illegally and arbitrarily. Further that she was working since 1999 and instead of regularizing her services, the same were terminated. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner was initially engaged on contract basis for a period of three months and her services could be terminated without any inquiry but her services were terminated after conducting proper enquiry. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.035. 15:07 A perusal of the file shows that the petitioner was initially appointed I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 380-2021 2

as temporary steno-typist on contract basis for a period of three months on 19.07.1999. Thereafter, the contract period was extended from time to time. Vide order dated 17.12.2020 i.e impugned in the present petition, the services of the petitioner were terminated. A perusal of the same shows that departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on 29.11.2017, in accordance with service and conduct rules of the University, due to her unsatisfactory work and conduct. The said enquiry report was accepted by the competent authority and thereafter the services of the petitioner were terminated after giving her one month salary from the date of issue of order dated 17.12.2020 (impugned order) under Rule 16.2 of P.U. Calendar Vol-III, 2019 at page 85. 6. Further perusal of the enquiry report as well as reply filed by the respondents shows that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 17.12.2020. 7. Accordingly, the present civil writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 8. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. July 02, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Gaurav Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.03 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP No. 380-2021 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 380-2021 (O&M) Date of decision : 02.07.2026 Sangeeta Malhotra ....Petitioner versus Punjab University through Vice Chancellor and ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. Rajesh Thakur, Advocate for Mr. Roshan Lal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Akshay Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the respondent. **** SUDEEPTI SHARMA , J. (Oral) 1. The present writ petition is filed impugning order dated 07.12.2020 passed by respondent No. 1, whereby services of the petitioner were terminated. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the services of petitioner were terminated illegally and arbitrarily. Further that she was working since 1999 and instead of regularizing her services, the same were terminated. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that the petitioner was initially engaged on contract basis for a period of three months and her services could be terminated without any inquiry but her services were terminated after conducting proper enquiry. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole file of this case with their able assistance. GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.035. 15:07 A perusal of the file shows that the petitioner was initially appointed I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 380-2021 2

as temporary steno-typist on contract basis for a period of three months on 19.07.1999. Thereafter, the contract period was extended from time to time. Vide order dated 17.12.2020 i.e impugned in the present petition, the services of the petitioner were terminated. A perusal of the same shows that departmental enquiry was conducted against the petitioner on 29.11.2017, in accordance with service and conduct rules of the University, due to her unsatisfactory work and conduct. The said enquiry report was accepted by the competent authority and thereafter the services of the petitioner were terminated after giving her one month salary from the date of issue of order dated 17.12.2020 (impugned order) under Rule 16.2 of P.U. Calendar Vol-III, 2019 at page 85. 6. Further perusal of the enquiry report as well as reply filed by the respondents shows that there is no illegality in the impugned order dated 17.12.2020. 7. Accordingly, the present civil writ petition being devoid of any merit is dismissed. 8. Pending application (s) if any also stands disposed of. July 02, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Gaurav Arora JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No GAURAV ARORA 2026.07.03 15:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document