AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were appointed as Nursing Officers under the National Health Mission, Chhattisgarh, on contractual basis at District Hospital (Mental Health Unit), Durg. It is further submitted that, vide impugned order dated 26.06.2026, the services of the petitioners have been terminated. Learned counsel submits that the impugned order has been passed in violation of Clauses 33.1 to 33.5 of the Human Resource Policy, 2018, without conducting a fair and proper enquiry and without duly considering the defence of the petitioners. It is further submitted that the enquiry committee should have been constituted by the employer/ Cheif Medical and Health Officer (CMHO) but instead the Collector, Durg has done enquiry. He further submits that allegations of gross negligence and misconduct are stigmatic in nature and, therefore, termination without compliance with the principles of natural justice is unsustainable in law.
On the last date of hearing, learned State counsel was directed to seek instructions and file a reply specifically stating whether the procedure prescribed under Clause 33.2 of the Human Resource Policy, 2018, had been duly followed.
In compliance thereof, learned State counsel, while filing the reply, submits that the petitioners were appointed as Nursing Officers under the National Health Mission, Chhattisgarh, on contractual basis at District Hospital (Mental Health Unit), Durg, and their services are governed by the Human Resource Policy, 2018. It is submitted that, as per Clause 26 of the said Policy, the posts under the National Health Mission are under the control of the District Health Society, which is a registered society under the Chhattisgarh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973, and the Collector is the Chairperson of the Governing Body. It is further submitted that, upon the unfortunate death of a patient, an enquiry committee was constituted and, after conducting due enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted vide Annexure R-4/4. Learned State counsel submits that the petitioners, being contractual appointees, were terminated after following the procedure prescribed under Clause 33 of the Human Resource Policy, 2018. It is, therefore, submitted that the Collector, being the Chairperson of the District Health Society, was competent to pass the orders of termination and that the impugned orders have been passed in accordance with law. Hence, no interference is warranted.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
From a perusal of the record, it is evident that the petitioners were appointed as Nursing Officers on contractual basis and their services were governed by the Human Resource Policy, 2018. The said Policy places the concerned posts under the control of the District Health Society, of which the Collector is the Chairperson.
For ready reference the Clause 33 of the Human Resource Policy, 2018 is quoted below:-
33. कदाचार, जांच प्रक्रिया एवं शस्ति :-
नियुक्तिकर्ता अधिकारी राज्य / जिलाके परिस्थितिजन्य कारणों से कदाचरण/शिकायत प्राप्ति पर निम्नानुसार कार्यवाही की जायेगी।
33.1किसी अधिकारी/कर्मचारी के विरुद्ध शिकायत प्राप्त होने की स्थिति में नियंत्रणकर्ता अधिकारी द्वारा जांच कराये जाने संबंधी निर्णय हेतु नियोक्ता के समक्ष प्रस्तुत की जावेगी। जांच हेतु निर्णय का अधिकार नियोक्ता / मिशन संचालक का होगा।
33.2किसी भी प्रकार की जांच किये जाने हेतु नियोक्ता अधिकारी द्वारा समिति का गठन किया जावेगा तथा जिसे माध्यम से जांच किया जावेगा XXX
It is further apparent from the reply filed by the respondents that, pursuant to the incident in question, an enquiry was conducted by the duly constituted enquiry committee and, thereafter, the impugned orders of termination were passed thus following the prescribed procedure.
The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the procedure prescribed under Clause 33 of the Human Resource Policy, 2018 was not followed by the respondents. In the absence of any material showing violation of the prescribed procedure or any jurisdictional error in the decision-making process, no ground for interference with the impugned orders is made out. Further the argument of the petitioner that the CMHO was the competent authority also does not stand as the Collector is the chairman of the committee and therefore has the power to conduct enquiry.
Consequently, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders dated 26.06.2026 warranting interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Accordingly, both the writ petitions are dismissed./-
