Karnataka High Court
Basavanand M vs Managind Director And Ors on 13 February, 2025
Author: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
Bench: S.Sunil Dutt Yadav
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1027-DB
WA No. 200024 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT APPEAL NO.200024 OF 2024 (S-DIS)
BETWEEN:
SRI BASAVANAND M.
S/O MALLIKARJUN HOSMANI,
AGE: 37 YEARS,
OCC: COMMUNITY HEALTH OFFICER,
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, YADGIRI,
R/o AT POST KOLLUR,
HOBLI NALWAR,
TALUKA CHITTAPUR-585218,
DISTRICT KALABURAGI.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI V.K.NAYAK, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by AND:
BASALINGAPPA
SHIVARAJ
DHUTTARGAON 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION,
KARNATAKA BENGALURU,
1ST FLOOR, AAROGYA SOUDHA,
MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU,
BENGALURU - 560023.
2. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
ZILLA PANCHAYAT YADGIRI,
YADGIRI - 585201.
3. DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
COMPREHENSIVE PRIMARY HEALTH CARE/
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1027-DB
WA No. 200024 of 2024
UNIVERSAL HEALTH COVERAGE,
BENGALURU, 1ST FLOOR, AAROGYA SOUDHA,
MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU
BANGALURU - 560023.
4. DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER,
HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE YADGIR,
DISTRICT: YADGIR - 585201.
5. DISTRICT SURVEILLANCE OFFICER
YADGIR,
DISTRICT YADGIR - 585201.
6. TALUK HEALTH OFFICER
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & FAMILY WELFARE,
SHAHPUR - 585223.
7. ADMINISTRATIVE MEDICAL OFFICER,
PRIMARY HEALTH CENTER, GOGI
TALUKA: SHAHPUR,
DISTRICT: YADGIR - 585223.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MALLIKARJUN C.BASAREDDY, GA FOR R4 TO R7;
NOTICE TO R1 TO R3 DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 22.05.2023 PASSED IN WP NO.200590/2023;
TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 23.12.2022 BEARING NO:
J/AA/KU/KA/A/KA/YA/NIL/2022-23 PASSED BY 4TH
RESPONDENT (ANNEXUE-G) III) TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
24.12.2022 BEARING PRAAAKGO/EMPLOYEE/ CONTRACTUAL/
TERMINATION/2022-23/57 PASSED BY 7TH RESPONDENT
(ANNEXURE-H) IV); ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING
THE 5TH RESPONDENT TO REINSTATE THE APPELLANT TO
SERVICE WITH BACK WAGES.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1027-DB
WA No. 200024 of 2024
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
The appellant was the petitioner before the learned
Single Judge had assailed the order at Annexure-G in the
proceedings whereby his services were terminated by
order dated 23.12.2022. The learned Single Judge by a
detailed order had observed that the petitioner was
appointed on temporary contractual basis and the said
period had come to an end and accordingly, petitioner
could not have challenged his termination. The Court had
also observed that in terms of Clause-13 of the agreement
engaging the services of the petitioner, there was a
provision of discharge by making payment of one month
salary in lieu of notice period and by treating the order of
termination as one that would fall within Clause-13 had
upheld the order of termination and accordingly, petition
came to be dismissed. The said order is under challenge in
the present proceedings.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1027-DB
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was
appointed as a Community Health Officer in the
Department of Health and Family Welfare on 24.11.2017
and that the said engagement was on contractual basis.
Further, it is submitted that during his service, he was
absent on 07.10.2022, when the Taluk Health Officer
visited the Primary Health Centre for inspection and in
light of the same, show cause notice came to be issued on
14.10.2022. It is the case of the petitioner that the show
cause notice issued was to the effect that the petitioner
was to show cause as regards his absence without prior
permission on 07.10.2022 at the time of inspection of the
Taluk Health Officer and thereby had committed lapse in
adhering to his responsibilities. As regards the show
cause notice at Annexure-B dated 14.10.2022, it is stated
that the petitioner has made out his reply dated
14.10.2022 and submitted on 15.10.2022 in which it was
asserted that he was absent between 2:45 p.m. and 3:30
p.m. as he had gone out to attend nature's call, in light of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1027-DB
the restroom in his workplace not having water facility and
accordingly, he had sought for condoning his lapse.
3. In the meanwhile, it is submitted that
recommendation was made to the Taluk Health Officer by
the Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre detailing
his conduct subsequent to 07.10.2022 as well and
asserting that he was absent on 08.10.2022, 10.10.2022
and 13.10.2022. Taking note of such recommendation, the
Taluk Health Officer has further forwarded his
recommendation to the disciplinary authority that is the
District Health Officer. The District Health Officer, as per
Annexure-G, taking note of the show cause notice issued
and observing that even after issuance of show cause
notice, the petitioner had committed lapse in performance
of his duty has relieved the petitioner. The said order was
under challenge before the learned Single Judge.
4. As observed above, the learned Single Judge
noticed that the employment of the petitioner was on
contractual basis. Clause-13 of the agreement provided for
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1027-DB
termination with 30 days notice and that since the
engagement was on contractual basis which would have
come to an end, the order of termination was upheld by
treating termination as one being under Clause-13 and the
writ petition was rejected.
5. It is the case of the petitioner that the order of
termination at Annexure-G was stigmatic and despite the
petitioner being a contractual employee and order of
termination which was stigmatic ought to have been
preceded by atleast a summary enquiry ensuring
adherence to principles of natural justice.
6. It is further contended that the show cause
notice relates to his absence on 07.10.2022 whereas, the
order of termination specifically refers apart from his
absence on 07.10.2022, lapse in performing duties for a
subsequent period which was not the subject matter of the
show cause notice. It was also contended that such aspect
has not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge
and that learned Single Judge by treating the order of
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1027-DB
termination as an order of termination in terms of Clause-
13 has in effect glossed over the aspect that the order of
termination was stigmatic.
7. Learned Government Advocate on the other
hand would contend that the order of the learned Single
Judge does not require interference as employment was
merely on contractual basis and that power of termination
was available under Clause-13 of the agreement.
8. Heard learned counsel on both sides.
9. It is to be noticed that the show cause notice
issued was only as regards his absence on 07.10.2022
when the Taluk Health Officer had come for inspection.
The reply made to such notice at Annexure-C would point
out that he had gone out between 2:45 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
for attending nature's call in light of non-availability of
water facility in the restroom. Such aspect ought to have
been taken note of by the authorities who, however, have
continued to proceed with the proceedings.
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1027-DB
10. The Medical Officer at Primary Health
Department had made out a report to the Taluk Health
Officer dated 13.10.2022 wherein apart from referring to
the alleged unauthorized absence on 07.10.2022, there is
a reference to subsequent lapse in not attending office on
08.10.2022, 10.10.2022 and 13.10.2022. Such
recommendation was made and eventually forwarded to
the District Health Officer through Taluk Health Officer.
The Taluk Health Officer in his correspondence with the
District Health Officer had referred to subsequent lapse
after 07.10.2022. The order at Annexure-G by the District
Health Officer not only refers to the show cause notice
issued, it has a reference to subsequent lapse after
issuance of show cause notice while passing the order of
termination. The order at Annexure-G is apparently
stigmatic, as it states that he had repeatedly committed
lapse in performing his duties on many occasions. It also
refers to his conduct subsequently of not having corrected
himself. The said order as rightly contended by the
counsel for the petitioner is stigmatic and even a
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1027-DB
contractual employee is entitled for adherence to
principles of natural justice and in the event the order of
termination is sought to be passed visiting stigma.
Reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in UP State
Road Transport Corporation and Others vs. Brijesh
Kumar and Another in Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C)
No.10546/2019 at Paragraph-19 by the petitioner is apt.
Paragraph-19 clearly stipulates that even a contractual
employee is required to be afforded an opportunity in
consonance with principles of natural justice. The said
judgment requires to be taken note of and in light of his
termination being stigmatic, in the absence of any enquiry,
the order at Annexure-G requires to be set aside on such
grounds which aspect has not been taken note of by the
learned Single Judge.
11. Insofar as the learned Single Judge treating the
order of termination at Annexure-G as one falling within
Clause-13, it is to be noticed that the order which is
stigmatic could not have been construed or treated by the
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC-K:1027-DB
Court to be one as simplicitor in terms of Clause-13 which
would be contrary to the very contents of Annexure-G
which is impermissible.
12. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the
learned Single Judge as also the order at Annexure-G.
Petitioner is directed to be taken back on employment on
contractual basis. It is clarified that the petitioner would
not be eligible for any further service benefit.
13. We would also observe that subsequent
continuance after taking the petitioner on duty would be
one between the petitioner and his employer.
14. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed off.
Sd/-
(S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
VNR
CT: PS
