Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 573
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI, J.
Golam Mostafa Mollah S/o Alim Uddin Mollah - Appellant
Versus
The Union Of India - Respondents
WP(C)/603/2018
Decided on : 19-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri R. Islam, Advocate
For the Respondents:Ms. A. Borah, SC, NHM,
Termination of service must adhere to principles of natural justice and cannot be based on unsubstantiated allegations, especially in contractual appointments.
Headnote:
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Termination of service - The petitioner, a Rural Health Practitioner, challenged his termination on grounds of lack of opportunity for hearing and inquiry - The termination was based on a police case, which culminated in a Final Report accepted by the Court - The Court found that the termination was not in accordance with law as it was based on unsubstantiated allegations of medical negligence - The interim order protecting the petitioner's service was made absolute. (Paras 1, 6, 15)
(B) Natural Justice - Principles of natural justice must be adhered to even in contractual appointments when termination is stigmatic in nature - The Court emphasized that termination must follow due process and cannot be arbitrary. (Paras 9, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was engaged as a Rural Health Practitioner in 2011 and was terminated in 2017 due to allegations stemming from a police case. The termination order lacked proper inquiry and consultation as required by the contract. The police case was resolved in favor of the petitioner. (Paras 2, 11)
Findings of Court:
The termination order was deemed invalid as it was based on unproven allegations, and the petitioner had been in service for over five years under an interim order. (Paras 15)
Issues: The main issues included whether the termination was lawful and if proper procedures were followed prior to termination. (Paras 6, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the termination was not valid due to lack of adherence to procedural requirements and the absence of substantiated allegations against the petitioner. (Paras 14, 15)
Result: Writ petition allowed.
JUDGMENT :
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against an order dated 14.12.2017, whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated as a Rural Health Practitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that such termination was done without any opportunity of hearing and without holding any inquiry.
2. The facts projected are that the petitioner who had completed his Diploma in Medicine & Rural Health Care Course was selected to be engaged as a Rural Health Practitioner (RHP) on 17.08.2011 on the basis of his merit. Such selection was made by the erstwhile NRHM which is presently the NHM. The petitioner was accordingly posted on contractual basis in the Ketkibari Sub-Centre under Agia BPHC, Goalpara District. The order of engagement was accordingly issued on 19.08.2011 in the aforesaid post of RHP. The said post has been subsequently designated as Community Health Officer. Though the initial engagement was on contractual basis for a period of 6 months from the date of joining, the same was extended from time to time and the scheme has been continuing till date. It is the case of the petitioner that on the ground that he was implicated in a police case, namely, Goalpara P.S. Case No. 322/2017, the petitioner was terminated from service vide the impugned order dated 14.12.2017. A complaint was also filed before the State Consumer Commission.
3. It is the legality and validity of the order dated 14.12.2017 which have been questioned in this writ petition.
4. I have heard Shri R. Islam, learned counsel for the petitioner. I have also heard Ms. A. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, NHM.
5. Shri Islam, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order has mentioned Clause-9 of the Contract which does not contemplate regarding any such power. He, however, has fairly submitted that there is Clause -6 as per which the contractual service can be terminated, which, however requires a consultation with the Chairman and Member Secretary of the Society. It is submitted that there is no such consultation with the Chairman and the Member Secretary of the Society. He has also submitted that he was wrongly implicated in the Goalpara PS Case No. 322/2017 as there was no fault of his. The Ejahar itself was lodged on a wrong presumption in which, after investigation, the police has laid the Final Report. He has also referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed on 03.03.2025 and has submitted that the said Final Report has been accepted recently by the Court of the learned CJM, Goalpara on 27.02.2025 and has in fact annexed the copy of the said order in the said affidavit. He has also submitted that the Consumer Case being CC 6/2018 which was filed by the complainant against the petitioner alleging medical negligence was dismissed on withdrawal vide order dated 27.09.2024.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also informed this Court that while the writ petition was moved, an order dated 07.02.2018 was passed by this Court protecting the services of the petitioner by staying the impugned order of termination. The said interim order dated 07.02.2018 has been extended from time to time and the petitioner is continuing in his service. He accordingly submits that under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order of termination is liable to be interfered with.
7. Ms. A. Borah, learned Standing Counsel, NHM has however defended the impugned order of termination. She has refuted the allegation that no inquiry was held before issuing the termination order and has submitted that in fact, a Show Cause Notice was indeed issued. In this regard, she has referred to the relevant pleadings made in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no.5 on 22.07.2022. She has also submitted that a Committee was constituted who had done an inquiry and a report was submitted by the said Committee on 23.10.2017 wherein the grounds and the reasons were cited. She h
