Rahul Kumar Chaturvedi vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health

1. Heard Mr. Shashank Singh learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 and Mr. Puneet Chandra learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No. 5 which even otherwise is merely formal party stands dispensed with.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 24th May 2025 dispensing with outsourced services of petitioner. Further prayer for quashing of the consequential order dated 24th May 2025 and the recommendations of the same date has also been made along with a direction to opposite parties not to interfere in the petitioner's working on the post of Data Entry Operator.

3. It has been submitted that initially petitioner was selected by opposite party No. 5, Yash Shahari Aajeevika Kendra, Lakhimpur Kheri which is an outsourcing agency, by means of order dated 29th July 2019 for purposes of placing him under the National Health Mission, Lucknow on the post of Data Entry Operator. In pursuance thereof, the Chief Medical Officer, vide letter dated 30th July 2019 passed orders posting the petitioner.

4. It is submitted that subsequently apparently on the basis of certain complaints having been made, directions were issued for constitution of a 2 WRIA No. 7775 of 2025 three-member committee which submitted its report dated 23rd May 2025 indicting petitioner with regard to allegations levelled against him and forms the basis of the impugned order dispensing with services of petitioner. It is submitted that since the report which was furnished after ex parte inquiry having been conducted and in which statement of witnesses were also recorded and formed the basis of termination order of petitioner, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have provided an opportunity of hearing to petitioner particularly in view of the fact that the impugned order of termination is stigmatic in nature and specifically alludes to deficiency in service of petitioner as well as allegations of embezzlement.

5. Learned counsel has also adverted to the letters dated 7th March 2019 as well as 18 August 2023 issued by the Mission Director, National Health Mission to submit that specific instructions have been given that in case of termination of a contract in service, an opportunity of hearing is required to be provided to such an employee particularly in case termination is on the basis of misconduct or any substantive allegations. It is therefore submitted that since the aforesaid directions have been flouted, the termination order requires to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with submission that admittedly petitioner's services are in the nature of an outsourced employee and therefore there is no direct contact between the petitioner and the National Health Mission due to which the letters dated 7th March 2019 and 18th August 2023 would be inapplicable upon the petitioner and it is in such circumstances that the order dispensing with services of petitioner has been passed and there was no requirement of any opportunity of hearing to be provided to him.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted between the parties that petitioner was employed by National Health Mission as an outsourced employee. There does not appear to be any direct contract between the petitioner and the National Health Mission with specific 3 WRIA No. 7775 of 2025 contract of service being entered into between the National Health Mission and the service provider. However it is also an established concept of service jurisprudence that every service is in fact a service of contract.

8. Apart from the aforesaid factor, it is evident that impugned order has been passed basing itself on the report of a three-member committee dated 23rd May, 2025. The said report has been brought on record as annexure No. CA-4 to the counter affidavit filed by the state authorities. A perusal of the aforesaid report makes it evident that an inquiry was conducted by a three-member committee in which statements of officials, staff and complainant were recorded. The report does not indicate any participation of petitioner in the aforesaid procedure. It is also evident that even videos pertaining to allegations levelled against petitioner were also examined by the committee. The report however also does not make it evident that any verification of the videography was ever conducted pertaining to the genuineness of the said videos.

9. It is also evident that the impugned order dated 24th May, 2025 has thereafter been passed on the basis of report dated 23rd May, 2025 dispensing with services of petitioner primarily alluding to his misconduct and allegations pertaining to embezzlement being established. Although there is no specific contract between the petitioner and the National Health Mission nor is there any service rule or regulation requiring any opportunity of hearing to be granted to petitioner prior to dispensing with his services but in the considered opinion of this court, such an aspect not requiring any opportunity of hearing to be granted to an outsourced employee would be applicable where an order dispensing with such services is passed generally and on simplicitor terms but the same facility would not be available to the department in case stigmatic orders pertaining to misconduct and allegations of an embezzlement are levelled against the outsourced employees, which forms the basis of the termination order since it would entail civic consequences and may be an impediment in future employment of petitioner.

10. In this particular aspect, the report of the three-member committee clearly indicates that an inquiry was conducted prior to passing of the 4 WRIA No. 7775 of 2025 termination order and in such inquiry proceedings, videos pertaining to alleged misconduct of the petitioner was examined and statements of witnesses were also recorded whereafter the impugned order has been passed on stigmatic grounds as indicated herein above. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court, in all fairness, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have permitted participation of petitioner in the inquiry proceedings and such a procedure having not been followed, clearly vitiates the entire proceedings as well as the impugned order of termination.

11. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that such participation or opportunity of hearing is not required to be granted to an outsourced employee where the termination order is passed on simpliciter terms but not as in the present case where an inquiry was held and termination order has been passed on stigmatic grounds.

12. In view of discussion made herein above, the impugned order dated 24th May 2025 and all orders consequential thereto are hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. For the aforesaid purpose, a proper charge sheet may not be required to be issued to petitioner but a show cause notice definitely would be required to which he is to be granted a minimum time of 15 days to reply. The inquiry proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously within a period of one month from the last date petitioner is required to submit his reply to the show cause notice. In case any evidence is taken by the inquiry committee, petitioner shall be provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the committee shall specifically deliberate and attend to the defence taken by the petitioner. It is directed that petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry proceedings.

13. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. October 8, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Shashank Singh learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties 1, 3 and 4 and Mr. Puneet Chandra learned counsel for opposite party No. 2. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No. 5 which even otherwise is merely formal party stands dispensed with.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 24th May 2025 dispensing with outsourced services of petitioner. Further prayer for quashing of the consequential order dated 24th May 2025 and the recommendations of the same date has also been made along with a direction to opposite parties not to interfere in the petitioner's working on the post of Data Entry Operator.

3. It has been submitted that initially petitioner was selected by opposite party No. 5, Yash Shahari Aajeevika Kendra, Lakhimpur Kheri which is an outsourcing agency, by means of order dated 29th July 2019 for purposes of placing him under the National Health Mission, Lucknow on the post of Data Entry Operator. In pursuance thereof, the Chief Medical Officer, vide letter dated 30th July 2019 passed orders posting the petitioner.

4. It is submitted that subsequently apparently on the basis of certain complaints having been made, directions were issued for constitution of a 2 WRIA No. 7775 of 2025 three-member committee which submitted its report dated 23rd May 2025 indicting petitioner with regard to allegations levelled against him and forms the basis of the impugned order dispensing with services of petitioner. It is submitted that since the report which was furnished after ex parte inquiry having been conducted and in which statement of witnesses were also recorded and formed the basis of termination order of petitioner, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have provided an opportunity of hearing to petitioner particularly in view of the fact that the impugned order of termination is stigmatic in nature and specifically alludes to deficiency in service of petitioner as well as allegations of embezzlement.

5. Learned counsel has also adverted to the letters dated 7th March 2019 as well as 18 August 2023 issued by the Mission Director, National Health Mission to submit that specific instructions have been given that in case of termination of a contract in service, an opportunity of hearing is required to be provided to such an employee particularly in case termination is on the basis of misconduct or any substantive allegations. It is therefore submitted that since the aforesaid directions have been flouted, the termination order requires to be quashed.

6. Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner with submission that admittedly petitioner's services are in the nature of an outsourced employee and therefore there is no direct contact between the petitioner and the National Health Mission due to which the letters dated 7th March 2019 and 18th August 2023 would be inapplicable upon the petitioner and it is in such circumstances that the order dispensing with services of petitioner has been passed and there was no requirement of any opportunity of hearing to be provided to him.

7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted between the parties that petitioner was employed by National Health Mission as an outsourced employee. There does not appear to be any direct contract between the petitioner and the National Health Mission with specific 3 WRIA No. 7775 of 2025 contract of service being entered into between the National Health Mission and the service provider. However it is also an established concept of service jurisprudence that every service is in fact a service of contract.

8. Apart from the aforesaid factor, it is evident that impugned order has been passed basing itself on the report of a three-member committee dated 23rd May, 2025. The said report has been brought on record as annexure No. CA-4 to the counter affidavit filed by the state authorities. A perusal of the aforesaid report makes it evident that an inquiry was conducted by a three-member committee in which statements of officials, staff and complainant were recorded. The report does not indicate any participation of petitioner in the aforesaid procedure. It is also evident that even videos pertaining to allegations levelled against petitioner were also examined by the committee. The report however also does not make it evident that any verification of the videography was ever conducted pertaining to the genuineness of the said videos.

9. It is also evident that the impugned order dated 24th May, 2025 has thereafter been passed on the basis of report dated 23rd May, 2025 dispensing with services of petitioner primarily alluding to his misconduct and allegations pertaining to embezzlement being established. Although there is no specific contract between the petitioner and the National Health Mission nor is there any service rule or regulation requiring any opportunity of hearing to be granted to petitioner prior to dispensing with his services but in the considered opinion of this court, such an aspect not requiring any opportunity of hearing to be granted to an outsourced employee would be applicable where an order dispensing with such services is passed generally and on simplicitor terms but the same facility would not be available to the department in case stigmatic orders pertaining to misconduct and allegations of an embezzlement are levelled against the outsourced employees, which forms the basis of the termination order since it would entail civic consequences and may be an impediment in future employment of petitioner.

10. In this particular aspect, the report of the three-member committee clearly indicates that an inquiry was conducted prior to passing of the 4 WRIA No. 7775 of 2025 termination order and in such inquiry proceedings, videos pertaining to alleged misconduct of the petitioner was examined and statements of witnesses were also recorded whereafter the impugned order has been passed on stigmatic grounds as indicated herein above. In such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this court, in all fairness, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to have permitted participation of petitioner in the inquiry proceedings and such a procedure having not been followed, clearly vitiates the entire proceedings as well as the impugned order of termination.

11. At the cost of repetition, it is made clear that such participation or opportunity of hearing is not required to be granted to an outsourced employee where the termination order is passed on simpliciter terms but not as in the present case where an inquiry was held and termination order has been passed on stigmatic grounds.

12. In view of discussion made herein above, the impugned order dated 24th May 2025 and all orders consequential thereto are hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite parties to pass orders afresh but only after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner. For the aforesaid purpose, a proper charge sheet may not be required to be issued to petitioner but a show cause notice definitely would be required to which he is to be granted a minimum time of 15 days to reply. The inquiry proceedings shall be concluded expeditiously within a period of one month from the last date petitioner is required to submit his reply to the show cause notice. In case any evidence is taken by the inquiry committee, petitioner shall be provided an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the committee shall specifically deliberate and attend to the defence taken by the petitioner. It is directed that petitioner shall cooperate in the inquiry proceedings.

13. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. October 8, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench Lucknow Bench