Smt. Rinki Singh vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 2578 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved
 
Court No.49
 

 
Case :- Case :- WRIT - A No. - 16955 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Rinki Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Muktesh Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manas Bhargava
 

 
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.

This writ petition has been filed against the orders dated 11.9.2019 and 19.9.2019 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur and the Medical Superintendent of Community Health Centre-respondent no.4 respectively.

From the record of the writ petition and as per the submissions from the learned counsel for the petitioner, the following facts can be gleaned out :-

(i) The petitioner has been working as Asha Sangini on honorarium basis of Rs.6051/- per month.

(ii) From the date, when she was appointed in the year 2007 at Community Health Centre, Block Ram Nagar, District Jaunpur, she had worked without any blemish.

(iii) On 7.5.2019, the petitioner had alleged some misbehaviour from the respondent no.6 with her which had led to her filing of an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for the lodging of a First Information Report.

(iv) However, it has been alleged that because of this complaint of the petitioner with regard to respondent no.6 who was the Medical Superintendent of the Community Health Centre, Block Ram Nagar, Jaunpur, the Additional Chief Medical Officer had on 6.6.2019 in retaliation issued a notice to the petitioner and had asked for an explanation with regard to some complaint made by the Medical Superintendent of the Ram Nagar Community Health Centre. The petitioner replied to the show cause notice on 11.6.2019 but thereafter no enquiry worth the name was undergone.

(v) To verify the complaints, it appears that on 28.5.2019 also a certain enquiry was undergone and a 4 member Committee had found that the complaint made by the petitioner and her sister-in-law Bhawna Singh were in fact misplaced and they, only to hide their misdeeds, had made a complaint of misbehaviour viz.-a-viz. respondent no.6.

(vi) Thereafter in pursuance of the 4 member Committee report dated 28.5.2019, on 12.7.2019 the petitioner along with her sister-in-law were required to explain, within three days, their conduct.

(vii) On 25.7.2019, the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice dated 12.7.2019.

(viii) Thereafter on 30.8.2019, a meeting presided over by the Chief Medical Officer was held and in that meeting an agenda was drawn wherein Agenda No.4 was with regard to the petitioner. In it, a narration was there that the Chief Medical Officer had informed the Committee that the allegations which had been made by the petitioner and here sister-in-law Bhawna Singh against the respondent no.6-Dr. Alok Singh were baseless. It was noted in the Agenda that the Committee had directed the Chief Medical Officer to take action for the termination of the service of the petitioner and her sister-in-law Bhawna Singh.

(ix) Thereafter the Chief Medical Officer on 11.9.2019 had written to the In-charge of the Community Health Centre, Ram Naga, Jaunpur to take action for the termination of the service of the petitioner and her sister-in-law Bhawna Singh.

(x) Thereafter on 19.9.2019, the Superintendent of the Community Health Centre, Ram Nagar wrote to the petitioner that as per the decision of the Committee dated 11.9.2019 her services were being terminated.

Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner had filed the instant writ petition.

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that if the sequence of events is seen then there is absolutely no enquiry worth the name which was undergone to establish the charges which were all the time being levied against the petitioner. He submitted that by the agenda which was drawn on 30.8.2019, there was only a direction to the Chief Medical Officer to take action for the termination of the services of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the finding of the 4 member Committee on 28.5.2019 as also the finding which was drawn on 30.8.2019 were only to the effect that the petitioner had prima facie committed some wrong and to hide that wrong, she was alleging misbehaviour which was done by the respondent no.6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there was no actual enquiry held which could have established to the hilt that the petitioner was in fact on the wrong. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the petitioner's services were contractual and only honorarium was being given to the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled for a full-fledged enquiry before the termination of her services as the termination was being done after a stigma was being cast in her service record. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the Government Orders dated 23.8.2005 and 4.3.2014 to show that the petitioner was appointed after a due selection was made by the selecting authorities and that the petitioner was also being paid a fixed honorarium. Learned counsel to bolster his argument that a disciplinary enquiry was a must if a stigma was being cast upon the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1958 SC 36.

Learned Standing Counsel in reply, however, has submitted that as per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Gridco Limited & Anr. vs. Sadananda Doloi & Ors. reported in 2011 (15) SCC 16 and as per the judgment of the High Court dated 10.5.2016 passed in Writ-A No.21122 of 2016 (Amrita Devi & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) only a legal or a fundamental right could be enforced in the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Standing Counsel submits that engagement of the petitioner under a welfare scheme on contractual basis does not confer any vested or legal right in her favour.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel, the Court is of the view that even though the petitioner's services were contractual, she definitely was being paid her honorarium. She was definitely doing some job in the public realm. What is more the Court finds that had there been a termination simplicitor then no enquiry was required but when the termination of service was being done after casting a stigma on her service record then definitely a full-fledged enquiry ought to have taken place. In the instant case, the Court finds that on 28.5.2019 only a 4 member Committee constituted by the State Authorities had prima facie found that the charges levelled against the petitioner against the respondent no.6 were baseless and it was also found that prima facie the petitioner was guilty of being not disciplined. Further more, the Court finds that when the Committee on 30.8.2019 had found from the reply which the petitioner had submitted, the petitioner was not disciplined then it had recommended to the Additional Chief Medical Officer to take action for the removal of the petitioner. The Court also finds that the Chief Medical Officer thereafter did not initiate any enquiry but only directed the respondent no.4 i.e. the Medical Superintendent, Community Health Centre, Block Ram Nagar, Jaunpur to terminate the services of the petitioner and resultantly the respondent no.4 had terminated the services of the petitioner. The Court definitely finds that only a prima facie satisfaction is not sufficient to terminate the service of any employee. If a stigma had been cast and the service of any employee was to be terminated then a full-fledged enquiry ought to have been undergone. In the instant case, the disciplinary enquiry was missing.

Under such circumstances, the order dated 11.9.2019 passed by the Chief Medical Officer, Jaunpur and the order dated 19.9.2019 passed by the Medical Superintendent of Community Health Centre-respondent no.4 are quashed and are set aside. However, it shall be open for the authorities to institute a full-fledged enquiry against the petitioner.

With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed.

Order Date :- 12.5.2022

GS

(Siddhartha Varma, J.)