IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the necessity for fair procedures in administrative actions affecting employment rights, quashing the termination due to violations of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 19.07.2021 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent No. 4 whereby the recommendation made in the meeting of the District Health Committee, Garhwa held under the Chairmanship of the respondent No. 3 on 17.06.2017 regarding termination of the petitioner’s contractual service, has been kept intact and his application with respect to the claim for payment of arrears of salary/honorarium as well as to reinstate him in his original place of posting, has been rejected. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as Block Programme Manager w.e.f. 20.11.2017 with full back wages and all consequential benefits. The petitioner has also prayed for payment of due honorarium for the period from 01.08.2015 to 12.04.2016.

2. The petitioner, who appears before this Court in person, submits that he was appointed on 30.04.2010 as Block Programme Manager under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM). In the light of the order of the respondent No. 4 issued vide memo No. 1550 dated 30.07.2015, the In-Charge Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Garhrwa-the respondent No. 5 issued letter No. 438 dated 31.07.2015 directing the petitioner not to do any work and not to mark his attendance in the attendance register/biometric system. However, the said order was subsequently revoked vide order as contained in memo No. 858 dated 13.04.2016 issued by the respondent No. 4 and the petitioner was directed to work on his post in the Community Health Centre, Garhwa as well as to work as Hospital Manager of Sadar Hospital, Garhwa in addition to his work. The petitioner was however not paid any honorarium/salary for the period from 01.08.2015 to 12.04.2016.

3. It is further submitted that a meeting of District Task Force was convened on 17.05.2017 under the Chairmanship of the respondent No. 3 and in the said meeting, the respondent No. 3 directed the respondent No. 4 to issue show cause notice to the petitioner asking explanation for non-updating of micro plan with respect to Mission Indradhanush (MI) and on non-submission of clear reply, to terminate him from his post. However, no such show cause notice was ever issued to him.

4. Subsequently, in the meeting of the District Health Committee, Garhwa held on 17.06.2017 under the Chairmanship of the respondent No. 3, it was decided vide Agenda No. 7 to send recommendation to the respondent No. 2 for the petitioner’s removal from contractual engagement. Thereafter, the recommendation for termination of the petitioner’s contractual service was sent for approval to the respondent No. 2 vide letter No. 2088 dated 19.08.2017 issued by the respondent No. 4.

5. Thereafter, the Administrative Officer, Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Committee, Namkum, Ranchi issued show cause notice to the petitioner vide letter No. 2723 dated 05.10.2017 which was replied by him on 10.10.2017, however, the respondent No. 2 approved the recommendation for terminating the petitioner’s contractual service vide Letter No. 9/R.C.H. 245/2014-3013 (R.C.H.) dated 07.11.2017 issued by the Administrative Officer, JRHMC, Department of Health, Medical Education and Family Welfare, Ranchi as well as an option was also given to transfer him to other Division so as to wait and watch his activity for 6 months. The respondent No. 4 however chose the option to terminate the petitioner’s contractual service on the post of Block Programme Manager, CHC, Sadar Garhwa w.e.f. 20.11.2017 vide order as contained in memo No. 2819 dated 16.11.2017.

6. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3973 of 2015 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 13.01.2021 quashing and setting aside the order as contained in memo No. 2819 dated 16.11.2017 and the matter was remanded to the respondent No. 4 to pass a fresh order after taking into considera