A stigmatic termination of a contractual employee, which entails punitive consequences such as the loss of reputation or future job prospects, cannot be effected without conducting a proper departmental inquiry and affording the employee a fair opportunity of being heard in accordance with principles of natural justice.

1. The core issue in the present writ petition revolves around the termination of the petitioner. The petitioner was appointed to the post of District Counsellor (ICTC) on yearly contract basis under the scheme of NUHM. No show cause notice was ever issued against the petitioner regarding alleged irregularities, the petitioner was terminated by order dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) read with order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P/2). Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present writ petition, seeking the following reliefs:

“10.1. Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and quash the orders dated 25.09.2023 (Annexure P/1) read with 13.12.2021 (Annexure P/2), whereby the representation made by the petitioner has been rejected resulting into affirmation of the termination of service of the petitioner in a most arbitrary and illegal manner.

10.2 Issue an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Data Entry Operator with immediate effect with all consequential benefits of arrears of pay with appropriate interest as deemed fit by this Hon'ble Court.

10.3 Grant any other relief, which is deemed fit in the circumstances of the case.”

2. Facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that the petitioner, after due screening, was appointed as District Counsellor (ICTC) on a yearly contractual basis vide order dated 31.12.2013 under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), a centrally sponsored scheme implemented through the State machinery, and his services, being consistently satisfactory, were renewed annually without interruption. While discharging his duties satisfactorily, the petitioner was unfortunately implicated in a criminal case registered as Crime No. 47 at Police Station Keregaon under Sections 67 and 67-A of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, pursuant to which he was arrested on 22.11.2021, remanded to judicial custody on 23.11.2021, and subsequently released on bail on 26.11.2021. However, about a month after his release, the petitioner was abruptly terminated from service vide order dated 13.12.2021 (Annexure P/1) on the ground that the alleged offences constituted misconduct under Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and Clause 34.3 of the Human Resources Policy, 2018 of the National Health Mission. The termination was effected solely on account of his arrest and the allegations made therein, treating the same as conclusively established misconduct without conducting any independent departmental enquiry, which the petitioner was entitled to even as a contractual employee, as settled in law. Thereafter, the petitioner was acquitted of all charges by a detailed judgment dated 24.02.2023, the acquittal being based not on any compromise but on the prosecution's failure to prove intentional commission of the alleged offence. Upon submitting a representation enclosing the judgment of acquittal and receiving no response, the petitioner approached this Hon’ble Court by filing WP(S) No. 4273/2023, which was disposed of on 10.07.2023 with a direction to decide the representation in accordance with the governing rules and in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Tripura High Court in Sanchayeeta Deb v. State of Tripura , WPC No. 166/2011, decided on 14.10.2015, within 60 days. Contra