Public authorities must adhere to the principles of natural justice by providing sufficient time for replies and issuing reasoned 'speaking orders' when imposing penalties; failure to assign specific reasons for rejecting a party's explanation indicates a lack of application of mind.

AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Digitally signed by AVANISH KUMAR PATHAK Date: 2026.03.03 NAFR 13:03:25 +0530

Order On Board

1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking following relief(s):-

“10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions, quashing the order dated 12.02.2026 (ANNEXURE P/5) passed by the respondent No.1 and Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dated 26.11.2025(ANNEXURE P/3) also passed by Commissioner Health Services-Chief Executive Officer, State Nodal Agency Chhattisgarh and the Hon'ble Court may kindly further be directed to the respondent authorities to restore the empanelment of the petitioner's hospital.

10.2 The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief which the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner hospital was empaneled as one of the hospitals under a medical scheme of the Central Government known as "Ayushman Bharat Pradhanmantri Jan Arogya Yojana” (for short 'the scheme') to provide treatment to patients eligible under the scheme. After empanelment, petitioner hospital is providing treatment to patients coming for treatment with card issued under the scheme. Hospital of petitioner was inspected on 29-9-2025 and Inspecting Team found certain shortcoming/irregularities in running and providing treatment to patients eligible under the scheme. Petitioner was served with show-cause notice dated 17-10-25 pointing shortcoming /irregularities and calling upon petitioner to submit reply/ explanation till 24-10-2025 i.e. within seven days. He submits that punishment of de-empanelment or cancellation of registration is proposed under show-cause notice, which comes under the category of major penalty and therefore it was obligatory on the part of respondent No. 3, who issued show-cause notice, to provide sufficient time to petitioner to meet out the allegations as mentioned therein. He further contended that respondent No. 3 ought to have provided minimum seven days’ time to submit reply. Petitioner was not served with report prepared by the Inspecting Team against petitioner and therefore, petitioner was also deprived from submitting explanation in a proper manner. Petitioner though submitted reply within short time on 22-10-2025, however, respondent No. 3 while passing order dated 26-11-2025 (Annexure P-3) has not considered the explanation as offered by petitioner in appropriate manner and rejected pleadings made in reply in one line that explanation offered is not satisfactory and acceptable, and issued the order imposing major penalty of de-empanelment of petitioner for a period of one year. He further submits that the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, however, the appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 12-2-2026 (Annexure P-5). The appellate authority though extracted part of reply submitted by petitioner before the respondent No.3 and other pleadings made in appeal, but dismissed the appeal only observing that upon considering the reply submitted, order of the respondent No. 3 is found to be correct. No reason has been assigned on the grounds raised in appeal. He lastly contended that respondent No.3 is not having any jurisdiction to pass the order of de-empanelment or cancellation of registration. As per Clause 4.3.1. if respondent No. 3 finds that shortcoming/irregularity noted by Insp