AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge
At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that he does not press relief Nos. 10.2 and 10.3 of the writ petition. Accordingly, this Court is only considering the relief sought for by the petitioners in relief clause 10.4. Relief clauses 10.1 & 10.5 are formal in nature.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the action of the respondents whereby one day's salary of each of the petitioners has been deducted from their salary for the month of June, 2025, on the ground that they failed to make online entries relating to vaccination on the U-WIN Portal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, pursuant to the communication dated 07.05.2025 issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Mungeli, to all the Block Medical Officers regarding online data entry on the U-WIN Portal by the Rural Health Officers (RHOs), show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners on 28.05.2025 vide Annexure P-3. It is further submitted that the petitioners duly submitted their replies to the aforesaid show-cause notices, stating therein that they had not received adequate training in computer operations and data entry, as their primary duties pertained to providing medical services and treatment and they were forced to make online entries. However, despite submission of their replies, the respondents proceeded to deduct one day's salary of the petitioners for the month of June, 2025, without considering the explanation furnished by them. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the action of the respondents is contrary to the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the replies submitted by the petitioners vide Annexure P-5 have not been considered before taking the impugned action of deducting one day's salary.
Per contra, learned State counsel, while referring to Annexure P-1, submits that the Ministry of Public Health and Family Welfare has issued instructions specifying the duties and responsibilities of Medical Officers, including those of the petitioners working as Rural Health Officers, which also include making online entries on the U-WIN Portal. It is contended that, as the petitioners failed to comply with the aforesaid instructions, show-cause notices were issued to them on 28.05.2025 and, thereafter, one day's salary of each of the petitioners was deducted. Accordingly, learned State counsel submits that the action taken by the respondents does not warrant any interference by this Court.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
From a perusal of the pleadings and the documents placed on record, it appears that show-cause notices were issued to the petitioners by the Block Medical Officer on 28.05.2025, calling upon them to explain why they had failed to make the requisite entries on the U-WIN Portal. It further appears that the petitioners submitted their replies to the said notices vide Annexure P-5. However, the explanations furnished by the petitioners were not duly considered by the respondents before deducting one day's salary from their salary for the month of June, 2025.
In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioners had submitted their replies to the show-cause notices, the respondents were required to consider the explanations furnished by them and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law before taking any consequential action. Proceeding to deduct the salary of the petitioners without duly considering their replies cannot be sustained in law.
In view of the aforesaid, the respondents are directed to consider the replies submitted by the petitioners vide Annexure P-5 and pass fresh, reasoned orders regarding the deduction of one day's salary from their salary for the month of June, 2025, in accordance with law. In the event the respondents find the explanations furnished by the petitioners to be satisfactory, the amount if deducted from their salary shall be refunded to them in accordance with law.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the explanations submitted by the petitioners, and the respondents shall take an appropriate decision after due consideration of the same.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent.