"No Free Pass for Absences": J&K High Court Backs Firing of NHM Health Worker Over Repeated No-Shows

In a firm endorsement of discipline in public health services, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has dismissed a writ petition by Himani Sharma, a contractual Mid-Level Health Provider (MLHP) under the National Health Mission (NHM). Justice Sanjay Dhar upheld her termination, ruling that complaints about transport woes and poor infrastructure at her posting in HWC-SC Kagrore, Basholi block, Kathua district, offered no justification for habitual unauthorized absences. The court ordered release of any withheld salary for periods actually worked, balancing accountability with fairness.

Complaints Turn to Charges: A Timeline of Turmoil

Himani Sharma joined as MLHP in April 2021, but her tenure quickly soured. She promptly complained to the Deputy Commissioner, Kathua, about inadequate facilities and staff non-cooperation. What followed was a barrage of issues: multiple absences flagged starting July 2021, missed meetings, zero entries on the NCD portal, alleged attendance register tampering, rude behavior toward staff and patients, and damaged office furniture, as reported by locals and PRI members.

Authorities responded decisively. Respondent No. 4 (likely a local health official) issued repeated explanations and show-cause notices—from July 2021 through November 2022. Three enquiry committees (two five-member and one three-member) visited her site, interviewed staff, and consistently reported poor performance, absenteeism, and unprofessional conduct. By January 2023, recommendations for action flowed to higher-ups, culminating in the termination order on January 12, 2024, by Respondent No. 2.

Sharma contested this via legal notice, then a writ petition, claiming harassment and denial of due process.

Petitioner's Plea: Harassment, Health, and Hidden Biases

Sharma's counsel, Antriksh Sharma, argued the termination was "stigma-laden" and punitive, demanding a full departmental enquiry with cross-examination rights. She cited medical prescriptions from Delhi's Hindurao Hospital, transport barriers, infrastructure deficits, and prior WhatsApp/telephonic intimation to superiors. A "good character" certificate from Respondent No. 4 in September 2023 was waved as contradiction. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedent in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Brijesh Kumar (2024 SCC Online SC 2282) and local cases like Feroz Ahmad Sheikh (WP(C) 2260/2022) and Dr. Shazia Salam (WP(C) 494/2023), urging Art 311 protections.

Authorities' Defense: Fair Warnings, Fair Process

The Union Territory of J&K, represented by AAG Raman Sharma, countered that as a contractual worker—not a civil post holder—Sharma lacked Article 311 safeguards. Her service agreement explicitly allowed termination for unsatisfactory performance, seven days' unnotified absence (Clause 16), negligence, misconduct, or record fabrication (Clauses 4, 22). Three enquiries, repeated show-cause notices (including a final one in January 2023), and chances to improve were provided. Her replies admitted absences (albeit excused untenably), and no prior notice was required per her undertaking. Principles of natural justice were satisfied without full enquiry rituals.

Contract Trumps Constitution: Court's Sharp Reasoning

Justice Dhar meticulously reviewed records, noting Sharma's admissions undercut her defenses. Illness might excuse absence if intimated , but transport/infrastructure gripes? "Never," the court declared. Citing Union Public Service Commission v. Girish Jayanti Lal Vaghela ((2006) 2 SCC 482), it clarified contractual employees dodge Article 311's full enquiry mandate. Local precedents were distinguished: unlike those, here natural justice prevailed via notices, replies considered, and three impartial probes—no cross-exam needed for non-civil servants.

The service contract governed, empowering termination on poor metrics like absenteeism and non-reporting, backed by committee findings.

Punchy Pronouncements from the Bench

  • "Issues relating to transport and infrastructure can never form a justified ground for not attending the duties."
  • "From the reply to the show cause notice furnished by the petitioner, it can safely be inferred that she has admitted the allegation regarding her unauthorized absence from the duty."
  • "A contractual employee is not entitled to the protection, which is available to an employee who is in service of Union or State on a civil post."
  • "The respondents have been more than fair in dealing with the case of the petitioner."

Verdict: Termination Stands, But Pay What's Due

The petition was dismissed on February 6, 2026: "The petition, therefore, lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed." This reinforces employer leverage in contractual public health roles, prioritizing portals, punctuality, and professionalism amid NHM's community outreach push. Future hires beware—undertakings bite back. For Sharma, a reminder: intimation is key, excuses selective.

As LiveLaw noted, this underscores "discipline and accountability in public service," with no room for serial no-shows in vital health outposts.