Writ petition challenging "de facto" termination cannot be dismissed for non-production of non-existent formal termination orders.

Two employees (a Principal and an Accountant) of the DPSG Society filed writ petitions challenging the termination of their services as arbitrary and seeking terminal dues.

The Principal (Goyal) was served a show-cause notice alleging misappropriation but received no formal termination order.

The Accountant (Garg) claimed he was forced to resign, withdrew said resignation the same day, but was subsequently excluded from service without formal communication.

A learned Single Judge dismissed both writ petitions on the sole ground that the Appellants failed to append the specific termination orders they were challenging.

The Respondents' counter-affidavits admitted that no formal inquiry was conducted and no written termination orders were issued, alleging instead that the employees had abandoned their service.

1. Whether a writ petition challenging "de facto" termination or employer inaction can be dismissed for failure to produce a written termination order when such an order does not exist.

2. Whether the learned Single Judge erred in requiring the production of non-existent documents as a precondition for adjudicating the legality of the cessation of employment.

The court applied principles of administrative and constitutional law governing judicial review under Article 226.

Specifically, it addressed the requirement of "due process" in employment termination.

The principle that a court cannot insist on the production of non-existent documents to frustrate a challenge against "inaction" or "arbitrary cessation of service".

The Division Bench found that the Appellants were not challenging a specific written order, but rather the "inaction" of the Respondents who treated the employment as ended without following the due process stipulated in the appointment letters.

The court noted that since the Respondents themselves admitted in their counter-affidavits that no inquiry was held and no formal termination orders were passed, it was logically impossible for the Appellants to produce such documents.

The court reasoned that the Single Judge’s insistence on these documents was "unwarranted" as the grievance pertained to the failure of the employer to act upon replies to show-cause notices or legal notices.

Consequently, the lack of a physical document does not preclude the court from examining whether the cessation of service was legally valid.

The Court restored the Writ Petitions to their original numbers for fresh adjudication, leaving all contentions, including the maintainability of the writ against a private body, open for the Single Judge to decide.