CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER v. FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER

(BY SRI. B.J. SOMAYAJI, ADVOCATE) AND: Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA …APPELLANTS

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE VIKAS SOUDHA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50684-DB WA No. 402 of 2023

2. MEMBER SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY (UNIT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT) ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 009

3. MISSION DIRECTOR NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION KARNATAKA STATE HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE SOCIETY I FLOOR NEW BUILDING DIRECTORATE OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE ANANDA RAO CIRCLE BENGALURU-560 009

4. SRI. NAGESH R.D S/O PARAMESHWARAPPA R.D AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS NO.143, 4TH CROSS RAVINDRA NAGAR SHIVAMOGGA-577 201

5. SMT. CHAYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS DISTRICT PROGRAMME MANAGER OFFICER OF DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE RAMANAGARA-562 159 (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, AGA) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S. 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2023 IN W.P. No. 1829 OF 2019 (S-RES). THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50684-DB WA No. 402 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The appellants who are respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6 before the learned Single Judge are in appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, questioning the order dated 18.01.2023, whereunder, order dated 26.12.2018 terminating respondent No.4 is quashed with a direction to reinstate reserving liberty to initiate enquiry into the allegations against the petitioner in accordance with applicable rules.

2. The parties to the appeal would be referred to as they stood before the learned Single Judge.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as District Program Manager on contract basis since 2013 and in terms of the order dated

26.12.2018 - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50684-DB WA No. 402 of 2023 (Annexure-F), the petitioner was dismissed from service. Though initially the petitioner was appointed for a period of one year, he was continued in service without break till the date of his dismissal.

4. Heard learned counsel Sri. B.J.Somayaji for the appellants and Smt. B.Sukanya Baliga, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents. Perused the writ appeal papers.

5. The petitioner was before this Court questioning the said termination dated 26.12.2018 (Annexure-F). Learned Single Judge under impugned order set aside the order of dismissal of the petitioner on the ground that when a dismissal order is on stigmatic ground, dismissal shall be preceded by enquiry. Questioning the same, the respondent Nos.2, 5 and 6 are in appeal.

6. Learned counsel Sri. Somayaji appearing for the appellants, respondents before the learned Single Judge contends that learned Single Judge is not justified in - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC:50684-DB WA No. 402 of 2023 directing reinstatement of the petitioner since his contract had come to an end on 31.03.2019 itself. Learned counsel submits that the order of learned Single Judge would come in the way of the respondents exercising their power under the Contract. It is submitted that the respondents under the Contract could terminate the services of the petitioner by giving one month notice but learned Single Judge order prevents from exercising such power. Learned counsel in that regard places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SATISH CHANDRA ANAND vs. THE UNION OF INDIA reported in AIR 1953 SC 250 and the decision in the case of STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS vs. EX. PILOT OFFICER ARUN GOVIL reported in AIR 1990 SC 458. Thus, learned counsel prays for allowing the appeal.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants and on perusal of the writ appeal papers, we are of the considered view that the appellants have not made out any ground to interfere with the order passed by - 6 - NC: 2024:KHC:50684-DB WA No. 402 of 2023 the learned Single Judge and writ appeal is liable to be dismissed with cost for the following reasons: There is no dispute with regard to appointing the petitioner as District Program Manager in terms of letter dated 18.07.2013. Though the petitioner was appointed for a period of one year, he has been continued in service without any break till his dismissal i.e., 26.12.2018. Dismissal of the petitioner is not simple order of dismissal. Before dismissal, show-cause notice dated 03.07.2018 was issued and thereafter Annexure-F dated 26.12.2018 is passed terminating the services of the petitioner. Show- cause notice requires the petitioner to submit his reply within 24 hours, wherein it was alleged that as the petitioner had failed to fill up the vacant posts, he had committed dereliction of duty, which affected development of the District.

8. Admittedly, no enquiry is conducted and impugned order at Annexure-F dated 26.12.2018 is passed terminating the services of the petitioner attaching stigma. - 7 - NC: 2024:KHC:50684-DB WA No. 402 of 2023 A perusal of the impugned order of termination/dismissal indicates that the petitioner is negligent and has committed misconduct in discharging his duties. When a person is to be removed or dismissed from service, regular enquiry would be necessary, if such dismissal is on the allegation of negligence or misconduct. If termination of a contractual employee or daily wager is termination simplicitor, it would not require any enquiry. The order dated 26.12.2018 terminating the services of petitioner contains allegation against the petitioner, which reads as follows: "1. ಎ(cid:2).(cid:3)ೆ(cid:5).ಎಂ ಅ(cid:8)ಯ(cid:10)(cid:11) ಬರುವ ಬರುವ (cid:16)ಾ(cid:18)(cid:19)ೕಯ (cid:21)ಾಯ(cid:22)ಕ(cid:24)ಮಗಳನು(cid:29) ಅನು(cid:30)ಾ(cid:31)ನ ೊ"ಸುವ$ದು,

2. &(cid:24)’ಾ (ೕಜ*ೆಯನು(cid:29) +ದ,ಪ(cid:8)ಸುವ$ದು.

3. ./ಾ(cid:11) ಮಟ1ದ(cid:10)(cid:11) ಪ(cid:24)2 2ಂಗಳ3 ಪ(cid:24)ಗ2 ಪ45ೕಲ*ಾ ಸ7ೆಗಳನು(cid:29) ನ8ೆಸುವ$ದು.

4. (cid:16)ಾ(cid:18)(cid:19)ೕಯ (cid:21)ಾಯ(cid:22)ಕ(cid:24)ಮಗಳ3, (ೕಜ*ೆಗಳ ಬ ೆ9 7ೌ2ಕ ಮತು< ಆ>(cid:22)ಕ ವರ?ಗಳನು(cid:29) ಸಂಗ(cid:24)@+, ಕೂ(cid:24)(cid:8)ೕಕ4+ ಪ(cid:24)2 2ಂಗಳ ಪ(cid:24)ಗ2 ಸ7ೆಯ(cid:10)(cid:11) Review Aಾಡುವ$ದು.

5. '(cid:16)ಾ(cid:18)(cid:19)ೕಯ (cid:21)ಾಯ(cid:22)ಕ(cid:24)ಮಗಳ3, (ೕಜ*ೆಗಳ ಬ ೆ9 7ೌ2ಕ ಮತು< ಆ>(cid:22)ಕ ವರ?ಗಳನು(cid:29) ಸಂಗ(cid:24)@+, ಕೂ(cid:24)(cid:8)ೕಕ4+ ಪ(cid:24)2 2ಂಗಳ ಪ(cid:24)ಗ2 ಸ7ೆಯ(cid:10)(cid:11) Review Aಾಡುವ$ದು. - 8 - NC: 2024:KHC:50684-DB WA No. 402 of 2023

6. (cid:16)ಾ(cid:18)(cid:19)ೕಯ (cid:21)ಾಯ(cid:22)ಕ(cid:24)ಮಗಳ3, (ೕಜ*ೆಗಳ ಬ ೆ9 7ೌ2ಕ ಮತು< ಆ>(cid:22)ಕ ವರ?ಗಳನು(cid:29) ಸಂಗ(cid:24)@+, ಕೂ(cid:24)(cid:8)ೕಕ4+ (cid:16)ಾಜCಮಟ1(cid:21)ೆD ವರ?ಗಳನು(cid:29) ಸ(cid:21)ಾಲ(cid:21)ೆD ಸ(cid:10)(cid:11)ಸುವ$ದು.

7. ತಮE ಅFೕನದ(cid:10)(cid:11) ಬರುವ G.H.ಎಂ ಗಳ (cid:21)ಾಯ(cid:22)IಮJೆಯ ಬ ೆ9 ವರ? ಸ(cid:10)(cid:11)ಸುವ$ದು.

8. ಗು2< ೆ +ಬKಂ?ಗಳ *ೇಮಕ, (cid:21)ೌLMN Aಾಡುವ$ದು, ಇದ(cid:21)ೆD ಸಂಬಂF+ದಂJೆ PೆಂಡQ ಕ(cid:16)ೆಯುವ$ದು.

9. (cid:21)ಾಯ(cid:22)ಕ(cid:24)ಮ ವCವRಾSಪಕರು 2ಂಗಳ(cid:10)(cid:11) ಕLಷ(cid:31) ಒಂದು Vಾ(cid:11)W, ಮೂರು ಸಮುXಾಯ ಆ(cid:16)ೋಗC (cid:21)ೇಂದ(cid:24)ಗಳ3 ಅಥZಾ ಮೂರು [ಾ(cid:24)ಥ\ಕ ಆ(cid:16)ೋಗC (cid:21)ೇಂದ(cid:24)ಗಳ3 ಮತು< ಮೂರು ಉಪ(cid:21)ೇಂದ(cid:24)ಗ" ೆ 7ೇ^ Lೕಡುವ$Xಾ_ರುತ<Xೆ. 7ೇ^ Lೕ(cid:8) ಸ7ೆಗಳ ಬ ೆ9, Utilization fund ಬ ೆ9, ಜನL ಸುರ‘ಾ (ೕಜ*ೆ ಯ ಬ ೆ9, VHND & VHSNC ಬ ೆ9 ಪ45ೕಲ*ೆ, aೕ(cid:10)bcಾರdೆ Aಾ(cid:8) ವರ? ಸ(cid:10)(cid:11)ಸುವ$Xಾ_ರುತ<Xೆ.

10. HMIS Portal ನ(cid:10)(cid:11) ./ಾ(cid:11) HMIS ಪ(cid:24)ಗ2 ವರ?ಯನು(cid:29) ತ’ಾ4ಸುವ$ದು ಮತು< (cid:16)ಾಜCಮಟ1(cid:21)ೆD ಸ(cid:10)(cid:11)ಸುವ$Xಾ_ರುತ<Xೆ.

11. ಎ(cid:2).(cid:3)ೆ(cid:5).ಎಂ ೆ Co-ordinate the collection and Distribution of NHM Supplies to the blocks and all health institutios in the district. ಇದ(cid:21)ೆD ಸಂಬಂF+ದಂJೆ ಕಡತಗಳ (Record) Lವ(cid:22)ಹdೆ Aಾಡುವ$ದು.

12. ./ಾ(cid:11) /ೆಕDವCವRಾSಪಕರು, ./ಾ(cid:11) ದJಾ<ಂಶ ವCವRಾSಪಕರು ಇವರ ಸಹ(ೕಗXೊಂ? ೆ Suport Aಾಡುವ$ದರ ಮೂಲಕ ಉತ<ಮZಾ_ (cid:21)ಾಯ(cid:22) Lವ(cid:22)@ಸುವ$ದು.

13. ‘ೇತ(cid:24) 7ೇ^ Aಾ(cid:8) aೕ(cid:10)bcಾರdೆ Aಾಡುವ$ದು, (cid:21)ಾಲ(cid:21)ಾಲ(cid:21)ೆD ಎ(cid:2).(cid:3)ೆ(cid:5).ಎಂ +ಬKಂ?ಯ (cid:3)ಾಗೂ aೕ/ಾF(cid:21)ಾ4ಗಳ ಆXೇಶದಂJೆ ಇತರ (cid:21)ೆಲಸಗಳನು(cid:29) Lವ(cid:22)@ಸುವ$Xಾ_ರುತ<Xೆ. (cid:21)ಾಯ(cid:22)IಮJೆಯ ಬ ೆ9 ವರ? ತ’ಾ4ಸುವ$ದು - 9 - NC: 2024:KHC:50684-DB WA No. 402 of 2023 aೕಲDಂಡ ಕತ(cid:22)ವC Lವ(cid:22)ಹdೆಯ(cid:10)(cid:11) Lಲ(cid:22)Ihತನ (cid:3)ಾಗೂ ದುನ(cid:22)ಡJೆiಂದ ಕೂ(cid:8)ರುವ ಬ ೆ9 ಈ (cid:21)ೆಳಕಂಡಂJೆ ಸೂಕ< ಸಮkಾi(cid:18)’ಾ_ *ೋ^ೕl Lೕಡ/ಾ_ತು<"

9. The above allegation attaches stigma to the petitioner. An employee attaching stigma, without conducting enquiry cannot be terminated. Learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that as the dismissal order is on stigma, without any enquiry, requires to be quashed.

10. Learned counsel Sri. Somayaji contended that since contract period has come to an end, the petitioner would not be entitled for reinstatement and learned Single Judge's order would come in the way of exercising contractual obligation. The appellants, respondents before learned Single Judge shall have to face the consequence of illegal termination of the petitioner. The order of setting aside or quashing termination order relates back to the date of termination. Hence, we are of the opinion that no fault could be found with the finding of - 10 - NC: 2024:KHC:50684-DB WA No. 402 of 2023 the learned Single Judge. The decisions on which the learned counsel Sri. Somayaji placed reliance are terminations without any allegation or stigma. In a normal circumstances, when a contractual employee is to be terminated without any allegation, notice as required under the contract would be sufficient, when allegation of misconduct or negligence is alleged then even a temporary employee or contractual employee cannot be terminated without conducting enquiry. There is no merit in the above appeal and accordingly, writ appeal stands rejected with cost of Rs.25,000/-, which would be payable to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE SMJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30