Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 969 (ALL)

Neelesh Kumar Verma v. State of U. P.

2025-07-22

AJIT KUMAR

body2025
JUDGMENT : Ajit Kumar, J. 1. Heard Shri Archit Madhyan, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing state respondents. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has assailed the order dated 11.01.2023 terminating the contract of appointment of the petitioner which has continued to operate ever since 13.07.2016. 3. The submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that the charges that are sought to be levelled against the petitioner are absolutely vague, inasmuch as the recitals contained in the order impugned itself reflect that earlier some recommendation was made by the District Health Committee on 24.01.2018 but the respondents themselves decided not to terminate the contract of appointment of the petitioner. Now again on the basis of some enquiry report and the recommendation made by the District Level Committee on 31.12.2022 contract of appointment has come to be rescinded whereas as it is contended, the recommendations made by the District Health Committee does not refer to any specific charge except dereliction in discharge of duty by the petitioner and showing a little bit of disobedience in the matter of directions issued by the authorities but there is no specific incident recorded to the effect that petitioner committed any misconduct. It is further contended that the enquiry report which has been relied upon while passing the order independent of the recommendations made by the District Health Committee, the charge basically of extortion committed by the petitioner vide charge No. 2, was not found proved and the other charges related to the period 2016-17 relating to which earlier recommendations made by the District Health Committee in the year 2018 were acted upon so proceedings stood dropped. 4. It is further contended by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that circular letter issued in the matter of terms and conditions of the contractual appointees provides that the termination of contract of such contractual employees should be a last resort and there are other punishments minor in nature which have been recommended to be imposed vide clause 1 to 6. It is further contended by learned counsel appearing for petitioner that circular letter issued in the matter of terms and conditions of the contractual appointees provides that the termination of contract of such contractual employees should be a last resort and there are other punishments minor in nature which have been recommended to be imposed vide clause 1 to 6. It is also contended that the District Level Committee which as is contemplated for the purposes of assessment of records and performance of contractual employees, should consist of four members whereas the District Health Committee that made recommendations in 2018 consisted of two members and the recent recommendations that were made by another committee consisted of two members only and, hence, District Health Committee was also not validly constituted as per the circular letter dated 07.03.2019. 5. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the contrary sought to defend the impugned order for the reasons assigned therein. Shri Gupta, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that respondent No. 2 has no role to play and to this effect a short counter affidavit has been filed. 6. Having heard learned counsel for respective parties and having perused the records, I find it to be quite established that earlier recommendations made by the District Health Committee on 24.11.2018 was not acted upon which related to certain irregularities in the discharge of duties by the petitioner in the relevant year 2016-17-18. This also comes to be reflected in the enquiry report which has been heavily relied upon while passing the impugned order. It also further transpires and clearly so from the records that the recommendations made by the District Health Committee in the year 2022 did not refer to any specific charge except for the vague charges regarding dereliction in discharge of duties by the petitioner, inasmuch as the committee's recommendations are signed only by the Chief Medical Officer who is the coordinator of the District Health Committee and the District Health Officer. From the enquiry report also it is quite apparent that the charge No. 2 which was a basic charge drawn against the petitioner of extortion by way of corruption was also not established. From the enquiry report also it is quite apparent that the charge No. 2 which was a basic charge drawn against the petitioner of extortion by way of corruption was also not established. The other charges are vague and the charges that relate to the year 2018 ought not to have been taken into consideration in view of the subsequent report sbmitted by the District Health Committee in the year 2018 having not been acted upon. 7. I further notice that the circular letter dated 07.03.2019 provides a procedure to be followed in the matter of action to be taken against a contractual employee and prescribed for constitution of District Health Committee to be consisting of four members to assess the work of a contractual employee and also to examine the report of enquiry if submitted against the such employee so as to warrant any action disciplinary in nature. The relevant circular letter dated 07.03.2019 is reproduced hereunder in its entirety: 8. Thus comparing the District Health Committee report and signatories thereupon both of 2018 and 2022 qua the provisions contained in the circular letter dated 07.03.2019, I find that the constitution of the District Health Committee itself was de hors the rules/ circular. It is a settled principle of law and so held by the judgments of the Supreme Court and of this Court where rules are silent or rules have not been framed the administrative circular and the Government Order shall prevail and the authorities are hide bound in law to follow these procedure prescribed under the rules and the circular letter Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others , (1967) SCC Online SC 16 : AIR 1967 SC 1910 and Union of India and Another v. Ashok Kumar Agarwal , (2013) 16 SCC 147. 9. The law is equally well settled that when rules require a particular thing to be done in a prescribed manner, it should be done in that manner alone; M/s Tata Chemicals v. Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Jamnagar, (2015) 11 SCC 628 , Krishna Rai (Dead) through LRs. and others v. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and others, (2022) 8 SCC 713 . 10. and others v. Banaras Hindu University through Registrar and others, (2022) 8 SCC 713 . 10. There may be a question that contract employees are not protected under government service rules and hence, this Court may not exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution, but in my considered view, where State and its instrumentalists are employers, they must ensure not only fairness in procedure by following their own circulars and instructions but should also be fair in their assessment of work and conduct of the contract based employees. If an experienced employee's work and conduct can be ensured to be smooth and in an orderly manner by issuing warning to him, such employer should refrain from undergoing fresh exercise of selection which will cause further burden upon public exchequer. 11. In these circumstances, therefore, the recommendations made by the committee which was not duly constituted as per the circular letter, should not have been considered and ought not to have been made a ground to rescind the contract of appointment of the petitioner. Further I notice that the charge of extortion by way of corruption has not been proved in the enquiry report and, therefore, the action ultimately rescinding the contract should not have been taken and petitioner should have been issued with a warning to be sincere in his work assigned to him. 12. In view of the above discussions therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained in law. 13. Accordingly writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order terminating the contract appointment of the petitioner dated 11.01.2022 is hereby quashed. 14. Petitioner shall be reinstated and shall be paid his remuneration. 15. Appropriate order shall be passed by the authority within a period of one month reinstating the petitioner into employment, reviving his contract employment within two weeks' time, however, petitioner shall not be entitled for any back wages.