The High Court
Case Details
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3638 of 2019 Praveen Kumar Bharat … … Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Dy. Commissioner, Chatra 3. The Civil Surgeon, Sadar Hospital, Chatra 4. The Mission Director, Jharkhand Rural Health Mission Samittee, Health, Medical Health and Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, Namkom, Ranchi 5. The Additional Chief Medical Officer, Cahtra. … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. N. PATHAK For the Petitioners For the State
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. B.K. Dubey, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, AC to GA-III 11/06.07.2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the order dated 26.06.2019, as contained in Annexure-9, by which services of the petitioner was terminated without giving proper opportunity of hearing to him, without considering the show-cause as well as without supplying enquiry report. According to the petitioner, he is Post Graduate Diploma in Rural Development and was appointed as a Block Programme Manager on 30.04.2010 under the National Health Mission. Thereafter, he was posted in Community Health Centre, Itkhori, Chatra and continued discharging his duties to the satisfaction of all and getting honorarium. Based on newspaper report dated 09.01.2015, alleging therein that an Operation Camp was organized by Surya Clinic for sterlisation without proper infrastructure and facilities. It was alleged that by using torch light, the said operation was conducted. After the report published in the newspaper, petitioner was served with a notice to show-cause on 15.11.2017 with a direction to reply within 24 hours. Petitioner duly replied the same on 17.11.2017. After the reply filed by the petitioner, he was removed from the service terminating the contract. Being aggrieved by order dated 27.11.2018, passed by Mission Director, National Rural Health Mission, Jharkhand, petitioner approached this Court vide W.P.(S) No. 1030 of 2019. This Court after 2. 3. 4. RC 2 hearing the parties, vide order dated 03.04.2019, remitted the matter back for reconsidering case of the petitioner afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. However, the Mission Director, National Health Mission, Ranchi, Jharkhand, vide his order dated 26.06.2019 (Annexure- 9) rejected prayer of the petitioner affirming the order dated 27.11.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner has been constrained to knock door of this Court. 5. Mr. B.K. Dubey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Decision
petitioner strenuously urges that the impugned order is cryptic, capricious and not tenable in the eyes of law on the ground that though petitioner approached this Court and specific direction was given to the respondents but instead of complying order and direction of the Court, has reiterate the same view which was given earlier. It has further been argued that petitioner was not at fault rather it is the higher officials who gave the contract to Surya Clinic and the contract was extended from time to time and petitioner has been made scapegoat. It has further been argued that without affording any opportunity of hearing, petitioner has been dismissed from the service. The respondent authorities without considering case of the petitioner, has passed the impugned order which is not tenable in the eyes of law. 6. Per contra counter affidavit has been filed. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Roy, AC to learned GA-III opposing contention of learned counsel for the petitioner submits that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner. It is reflected from the impugned order itself that the show-cause notice was issued to which petitioner gave detailed reply but the same was not found satisfactory and as such petitioner was dismissed from the service on the ground of indiscipline and mismanagement and further the petitioner was found working hand-in-glove with the members of Surya Clinic for giving the amount to the beneficiaries. Learned counsel further argues that contention of the petitioner that it was the respondents who had extended the contract of Surya Clinic and with malafide intention it was alleged that the petitioner was responsible for it, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally wrong and based on conjecture and surmises. RC 3 7. (i) Having gone through rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no interference is warranted in the instant writ petition for the following facts and reasons: The respondents have fully complied with the orders and directions of this Court passed earlier in W.P.(S) No. 1030 of 2019. Petitioner was issued show-cause and after receipt of the same, petitioner replied to it. The reply of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and hence the same was rejected. It is specific arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner that the contract of Surya Clinic was extended by the respondents but same appears to be based on conjectures and surmises as not even a chit of paper has been produced to substantiate the allegations. (ii) The specific reliance has been placed on Annexure-4 to the writ petition by learned counsel for the petitioner which shows that the order was passed on 07.11.2014 by the Civil Surgeon, Chatra whereas the contract of Surya Clinic was valid upto 30.12.2014. The contention of leaned counsel for the petitioner is totally misconceived. It appears from the two letters dated 09.01.2015 and 10.01.2015, which have been annexed with the supplementary counter affidavit, issued by the Deputy Commissioner and the Civil Surgeon, Chatra respectively. It shows that the contract of Surya Clinic came to an end on 30.12.2014. Annexure-4, dated 07.11.2014 is of no help to the petitioner. Petitioner has tried to impress this Court that on 07.11.2014, the contract of Surya Clinic was extended. The said contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is totally misplaced and misconceived. From the two letters, it appears that petitioner was working hand-in-glove with the Management of Surya Clinic. (iii) The beneficiaries were the sufferers. The sterlisation camp was totally flop because of the petitioner and rightly petitioner was removed from the service on the ground that his appointment itself was contractual. No interference is warranted in the instant writ petition. The writ petition is devoid of merits and as such the same stands dismissed. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) 8. RC