JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Narendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order dated 24th May, 2022 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Meerut rescinding the contract of employment of the petitioner as a ‘Ward Boy’ on the ground that he had been found negligent in discharge of his duties as a contract employee and accordingly, District Health Committee decided to rescind his contract. 3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner had fallen ill and accordingly was advised bed rest by the doctor, namely Dr. Annu Gupta, the emergency medical officer of the Government District Hospital, Meerut from 19th April, 2022 to 25th April, 2022 and while petitioner was issued with show cause notice on 28th April, 2022 for remaining absent for seven days. He submitted reply thereto appending therewith the prescription paper of 'advised bed rest' by the doctor. This reply was submitted by the petitioner on 4th May, 2022 but no consideration has been accorded to the reply and even the medical advise was not even referred to in the order impugned. It is also submitted that the decision of the District Level Committee was not communicated to the petitioner at any point of time. 4. Sri Shukla has argued that in view of the guidelines/ circular issued by the Director Health Mission, Uttar Pradesh dated 7th March, 2019, the District Level Health Committee could proceed to rescind the contract of employment only in the rarest of the rare cases where the charges are very serious otherwise certain other punishments have been directed to be imposed like 15 days cut in the pay or no increment in the next one year or transfer to another block or if the posting is in the district level then transfer to another district or any penalty that may be reasonable and according to the rules by the committee. The relevant circular dated 7th March, 2019 is reproduced hereunder: 5. This circular that has been relied upon by the petitioner and pleadings to this effect has been raised in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, has not been denied in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. The relevant circular dated 7th March, 2019 is reproduced hereunder: 5. This circular that has been relied upon by the petitioner and pleadings to this effect has been raised in paragraph 8 of the writ petition, has not been denied in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit. Only this much has been stated that these are matters of record and can be verified therefrom. 6. In paragraph 17 and 19 of the writ petition sufficient pleadings have been raised that petitioner has been be deligently discharging duties except for those seven days when he absented for medical ground and that there was no negligence attributable to the daily discharge of duties. These paragraphs have come to be replied in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the counter affidavit but no specific denial has come as to how the petitioner was found to be guilty for negligence in discharge of his duties except for these seven days of absence. Even the recommendation of District Health Committee which has been relied upon by the Chief Medical Officer in passing the order impugned has not been appended with the counter affidavit. 7. In such above view of the matter, it is quite apparent on the face of record that the medical prescription for bed rest as advised by the medical officer of the district hospital itself has not been taken into consideration and the decision has been taken to rescind the contract of the petitioner arbitrarily holding him to be guilty of negligence in discharge of duties. 8. In such circumstances, therefore, the order passed by the Chief Medical Officer dated 24th May, 2022 cannot be sustained in law and accordingly is hereby quashed. Consequently, the recommendation of District Health Committee dated 28th April, 2022 is also hereby quashed. 9. The respondents are directed to consider the reinstatement of the petitioner as contract employee and pass appropriate orders in the light of the circular dated 7th March, 2019. 10. Appropriate order shall be passed within a maximum period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order.