Shri Kamei Khampu vs The State Of Manipur Through The ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 445 Mani

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
LHAINEI Digitally
        by
                  signed


CHONG HAOKIP
        LHAINEICHONG

        Date: 2022.10.11
HAOKIP 14:15:06 +05'30'
                                         AT IMPHAL
                               W.P.(C) No. 253 of 2020
          Shri Kamei Khampu, aged about 42 years, S/o (L) Kamei Achong,
          resident of Sangaiprou Kabui Khul, P.O. Tulihal, P.S. Lamphel,
          District Imphal West, Manipur-795140.
                                                                   ... Petitioner
                                           -Versus -

          1. The State of Manipur through the Principal Secretary (Health &
             FW), Govt. of Manipur/Chairman, Executive Committee, State
             Health Society, National Health Mission, Manipur, New
             Secretariat Building, P.O. & P.S. Imphal, District Imphal West,
             Manipur-795001.
          2. The State Mission Director, State Health Society, National
             Health Mission Manipur, Lamphelpat, P.O. & P.S. Lamphel,
             District Imphal West, Manipur-795004.
          3. The Chairman, District Health Society, National Health Mission,
             Tamenglong District, P.O., P.S. & District Tamenglong,
             Manipur-795141.
                                                               ... Respondents

B E F O R E

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH

For the Petitioner : Mr.Kh. Tarunkumar, Adv.

                   For the respondents        :   Mr. A. Vashum, GA.
                   Date of Hearing            :   24.08.2022
                   Date of Judgment & Order   :   11.10.2022


                                  Judgment & Order
[1]          Heard Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner and Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing

for the respondents.

The present writ petition had been filed with a prayer for

quashing and setting aside the impugned show-cause notice dated

23.03.2020 in respect of the petitioner and the impugned memorandum

dated 06.05.2020 thereby terminating the contractual engagement of the

petitioner with immediate effect.

[2] The facts of the present case in brief is that the petitioner was

initially engaged as a District Programme Manager (DPM) in the State

Health Society, National Health Mission, Manipur on contract basis for

implementation of a Scheme for the period from 28.11.2016 to 28.02.2017

on the terms and conditions as set out in the agreement executed on

01.12.2016 between the State Health Society, National Health Mission,

Manipur, and the petitioner. The relevant terms and conditions as set out

in the said agreement are as under:-

"1. The 2nd Party is hereby engaged as DPM on contract basis for a period from 28/11/16 to 28/2/2017. His/her service shall automatically stand terminated immediately at the end of contract period.

"2. The 2nd Party shall be paid a consolidated remuneration of Rs. 13600+PBH (Rupees Thirteen thousand Six hundred only) only per month by 1st Party.

"3. The 2nd Party shall work or perform duties assigned from time to time under the supervision and control of the 1st Party or such Officer authorized by the 1st Party;

"4. The 2nd Party shall, during the term of this agreement, not engage himself/herself directly or indirectly in other employment whatever.

"5. The above parties agreed that the service rules presently governing the State Government employees shall not apply to the 2nd Party.

"6. The 2nd party shall have no right to claim or shall not make claim for regular appointment/absorption on the basis of his/her engagement for implementation of the said Scheme. His/her service shall automatically cease immediately at the end of contract period.

"7. The 2nd Party shall execute an Undertaking which is appended hereto in respect of his/her term of engagement for implementation of the said scheme. The said undertaking will be a part of this Agreement.

"8. The either party to this Agreement may terminate this Agreement by giving to the other party one month's notice in writing of his/her intention to do so and on the expiration of such notice, this Agreement shall stand determined/terminated".

[3] The undertaking as mentioned in Para 7 of the aforesaid agreement

and executed by the petitioner is as under:-

"OFFICE OF THE STATE HEALTH SOCIETY, MANIPUR

UNDERTAKING

I, Kamei Khampu do hereby undertake that I shall not claim any right for regular appointment on the basis of my engagement as DPM on contract basis under the State Health Society Scheme, NHM, Manipur Scheme (CSS).

Further, I also undertake that my engagement as DPM (designation) Kamei Khampu (name) shall automatically cease at the end of the contract period without awaiting order for termination of the contract service from the competent authority.

Sd/-

(KAMEI KHAMPU) Signature of Contract Appointee"

[4] On examination of the record of the present writ petition, it appears

that the period of engagement of the petitioner on contract basis was

extended after the expiry of the period of his initial engagement. On

13.03.2020, while the petitioner was serving as District Programme

Manager at District Health Society, Tamenglong, the CMO/DMD,

Tamenglong District issued a show-cause notice thereby instructing the

petitioner to give his explanation in writing within seven days as to why

disciplinary action should not be taken against him in connection with the

petitioners' alleged insubordination to duties. In response to the said

show-cause notice, the petitioner submitted his written explanation dated

17.03.2020 stating, inter-alia, that the allegations made against him are

baseless and fabricated and the same have been done to tarnish his

reputation.

[5] Subsequently, the CMO/DMD, Tamenglong District issued another

show-cause notice dated 23.03.2020 thereby instructing 19 Doctors and

Para-Medical Staff, including the present petitioner, to give an explanation

in writing immediately as to why disciplinary action should not be taken

against them for their insubordination to duties. However, after issuance of

the said show-cause notice, the petitioner was detailed for various duties

in connection with the control and containment of the COVID-19

Pandemic.

[6] When the petitioner was performing his duties as a member of the

COVID-19 Control Room Administration of the Tamenglong District, the

State Mission Director, State Health Society, Manipur, National Health

Mission, issued the impugned Memorandum dated 06.05.2020 thereby

terminating the contractual engagement of the petitioner with immediate

effect.

Having been aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court

by filing the present writ petition for redressing his grievances.

[7] Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner

submitted that so many allegations have been made against the petitioner

in the impugned Memorandum and on the basis of such unfounded and

unproved allegations, the contractual engagement of the petitioner had

been terminated without holding any enquiry and without giving any

opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself and accordingly, the

impugned Memorandum is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the

same is liable to be quashed and set aside. For ready reference, the

contents of the impugned Memorandum are reproduced hereunder:-

"MEMORANDUM Imphal, the 6th May, 2020

No.125/TOE/CS/NHM-2015: Whereas State Health Society, NHM Manipur had engaged Shri Kamei Kampu, S/o (L) Achong Kamei of Sangaiprou Kabui Village, Imphal on contract basis as District Program Manager, initially for a period from 28th Nov, 2016 to 28th February, 2017 and whose period of engagement has been extended from time to time; and

"2. Whereas, as per terms of the contract engagement, Shri Kamei Kampu Shall work or perform duties assigned from time to time under the supervision and control of SHS or such officer authorised by the SHS; and

"3. Where, Shri Kamei Kampu is now posted as District Prgram Manager, Tamenglong District and he is under the supervision and control of CMO/DMD, DHS, Tamenglong and the DC Tamenglong as Chairman of DHS, Tamenglong District; and

"4. Whereas, the DC/Chairman, DHS, Tamenglong has reported vide letter no. DC(TML)11/O.M./2015 dated 24.03.2020 that Mr. Kamei Kampu has not shown any interest or seriousness in his work for the last few months and that in situation of present (COVID-19) pandemic, he has put the entire DHS to test due to limited manpower. He has not shown up at the District HQ for so long despite he being supposed to be in station. DC has further reported that he has been associated with various underground elements are reported by the CMO, Tamenglong. The matter has been reported in local media thereby tarnishing the image of the department as a whole. As this very crucial juncture, Mr. Kamei Kampu is not in a position to render his service; and

"5. Whereas, the DC/Chairman, DHS Tamenglong has further reported vide his letter no. DC(TML)/11/O.M./2015 dated 25.03.2020 read with letter no.

45/NHM/DHS/TML/Dspn-2019 dated 28.02.2020 of the DMD/CMO, Tamenglong that the continuation of service of Mr. Kamei Kampu as DPM, DHS, NHM, Tamenglong will only further deteriorate the progress of various NHM programmes. In the CMO's letter dated 25.02.2020 it is reported as follows:

i) That, Mr. Kamei has joined his place of posting i.e. District Health Society, Tamenglong on the 30th December, 2016. Later, he was transferred to Kangpokpi District and then to Noney District and again re-transferred to Tamenglong District.

ii) That, Mr. Kamei has been observed and reported to be absent from duties and his place of posting. His absence in station has contributed to non-effective implementation of the various ongoing programmes of the Mission.

iii) That, Mr. Kamei has been observed and known that he has never opened files or contributed to program planning. He is also observed to be lacking in understanding of the various health programmes theoretically, technically and practically. He has fallen behind in many of the programmes and tasks that were assigned to him.

"6. Whereas, as per the CMO/DMD's letter no 45/NHM/DHS/TML/Dspn-2019 dated 19.03.2020, show cause notice dated 13.03.2020 had been issued too Mr. Kamei Kampu regarding a report about the latter's alleged indulgence in activities which are not related to duties assigned to him by the DHS, Tamenglong. An explanation has been submitted by Mr. Kamei Kampu denying the allegation against him. No

discussion to the said reply could be made as Mr. Kamei Kampu left station for Imphal the same day, i.e., on 17.03.2020. According to the CMO/DMD, Mr. Kamei Kampu's insubordination and absence from station during the time of a global health crisis and emergency has posed huge disadvantages and lapses in preparedness of DHS (for tackling COVID-19 pandemic).

"7. Whereas, according to a press statement issued by the ZUF dated 23.02.2020, the activities in question at para 6 above, refers to collection of tax in the name of Zeliangrong United Front by Mr. Kamei Kampu S/o (L) Achong Kamei of Sangaiprou Kabui Village, a government employee working under NHM and posted in Tamenglong District as District Program Manager; and

"8. Whereas, the ZUF is an armed insurgent ground; and

"9. Whereas, the documents submitted by the DC and enclosures have been examined in detail. Based on the same, it is now established that Shri Kamei Kampu had not been amenable to discipline by absenting himself from station; and

"10. A Memorandum had also been issued by the SMD, SHS, NHM, Manipur vide no. 1007/MC-COVID-109/NHM-2020 dated 23.03.2020 empowering all DMDs to utilise the staff of NHM for prevention and control of COVID-19 in their respective districts. The DPM is a key official in the organisational structure and administration of NHM at district level. The continued absence of DPM in any district will hamper the functioning of NHM in the said district. Given the infectious nature of COVID-19 pandemic and its capacity to take toll on human lives, the absence of such by an official in the district is likely to jeopardise the implementation of preparatory and preventive measures in the district.

"11. Though adequate proof has not been produced with respect to the alleged involvement of Mr. Kamei Kampu in acts of extortion by taking name of an illegal insurgent group, the continued engagement of such an official will further have a demeaning effect on the staff of DHS, NHM, Tamenglong.

"12. Notwithstanding this, it is clearly established that Mr. Kamei Kampu has violated para 3 of the terms of agreement by not performing duties assigned to him from time to time on account of his continuous absence from station.

"13. In view of this and with the approval of the Chairman (governing Body), NHM, Manipur, the contractual agreement

between Mr. Kamei Kampu and SHS, Manipur is terminated with immediate effect.

"14. As against the term of agreement of contract stipulating that a month's notice be given in writing on intention to terminate and termination of agreement on expiry of such period, one month's salary shall be sanctioned to Mr. Kamei Kampu in lieu of notice; and the said period of one month for preparation of such salary shall be counted with effect from the day, next after issue of this order.

"15. Notwithstanding this order of termination of contract, the SMD, NHM serves the right to take up further proceedings/actions Mr. Kamei Kampu under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005 as amended from time to time, for violation thereof in connection with the present COVID-19 pandemic.

Sd/-

(Ningthoujam Geoffrey) State Mission Director State Health Society, Manipur."

[8] Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar submitted that the petitioner had been

terminated from his service without holding any enquiry and without

affording any opportunity of defending himself and without any evidence or

finding to prove the allegations made against him in a most arbitrary

manner and in colourable exercise of power. It has also been submitted

that out of 19 incumbents mentioned in the impugned show-cause notice

dated 23.03.2020, only the petitioner was picked up and terminated from

service in a most discriminatory manner and by way of selective

punishment and accordingly, the impugned Memorandum is liable to be

quashed and set aside.

[9] It has also been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner

that as the petitioner had been terminated from service on the basis of

many serious allegations made against him, a stigma has been cast upon

his career and such termination is not a case of termination simpliciter but

a punitive one and accordingly, such punitive action cannot be taken up

against the petitioner without holding any enquiry and without giving him

any opportunity of defending himself and accordingly, such termination

order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be

quashed and set aside.

In support of his contentions, the learned counsel relied on

the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Delhi

Transport Corporation Vs. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress reported in "AIR

1991 S.C. 101, wherein it has been held as under:-

"164. Even executive authorities when taking administrative action which involves any deprivation of or restriction on inherent fundamental rights of citizens must take care to see that justice is not only done but manifestly appears to be done. They have a duty to proceed in a way which is free from even the appearance of arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. They have to act in a manner which is patently impartial and meets the requirements of natural justice.

"165. It is also pertinent to refer in this connection the pronouncement of this Court in the case of E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., (1974) 2SCR 348 : (AIR 1974 SC 556):

"Equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies, one belongs to the ruleof law in a publicwhile the other to the whim and caprice of an absolute monarck. Article 14 strikes atarbitrariness inState action and ensures fairness and equality of treatment. The principle of reasonableness whichlegally as well as philosophically, is an essential element of equality or non-arbitrariness pervadesArticle 14 like a brooding omni-presence and the procedure contemplated by Art.21 must answerthe test of reasonableness in order to be in conformity with Art. 14, it must be right and just andfair and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive."

"236. In Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, (1975) 3 SCR. 619 : AIR 1975 SC. 1331, the Constitution Bench ofthis Court put a nail in the coffin of the play of the private master's power to hire and fire his employees and held that Regulations or Rules made under a Statute apply uniformly to everyoneor to all members of the same group or class. They impose obligations on the statutory authoritieswho cannot deviate from the conditions of service and any deviation will be enforced through legalsanction of declaration by Courts to invalidate the actions in violation of the Rules or Regulations.The statutory bodies have no free hand in framing the terms or conditions of service of their employees. The Regulations bind both the authorities and also the public. The powers of thestatutory bodies are derived, controlled and restricted by the Statutes which create them and theRules and Regulations framed thereunder. The Statute, thereby, fetters on the freedom of contract.Accordingly declaration was granted that dismissal or removal of an employee by statutoryCorporation in contravention of statutory provision as void. Mathew, J. in a separate but concurrentjudgment held that a Public Corporation being the creation of a Statute is subject to statutorylimitations as a State itself. The preconditions of this Part II viz., that the corporation is created byStatute and the existence of power in the corporation is to invade a statutory right of the individual.Therefore, the governing power must be subject to fundamental statutory limitations. The need to subject the power centres to the control of the Constitution requires an expansion of concept of Stateaction. The duty of State is affirmative duty seeing that all essentials of life are made available to allpersons. The task of State today is to make the achievement of good life both by removing obstaclesin the path of such achievement and by assisting individual in realising his ideal of self-perfection. The employment under public corporation is a public employmentand, therefore, the employee should have the protection which appertains to public employment.

(Emphasis supplied).

The Court must, therefore, adopt the attitude that declaration is a normal remedy for a wrongfuldismissal in case of public employees which can be refused in exceptional circumstances. Theremedy of declaration should be a remedy made an instrument to provide reinstatement in publicsector. This principle was extended to numerous instances where the termination of services of theemployees of a statutory corporation was affected in violation of the principles of natural justice orin transgression of the statutory rules etc. In U.P. State Warehousing Corporation v. N.V. Vajpayee,(1980) 2 SCR773 at p.780F to G and 783G to 284A : (AIR 1980 SC 840 at pp. 843-44 and 845), this Court held that statutory body cannotterminate the services of its employees without due enquiry held in accordance with the principles ofnatural justice. The persons in public employment are entitled to the protection of Arts. 14 and 16of the Constitution, when the

service was arbitrarily terminated. The question, therefore, is whetherthe statutory corporations are entitled to be invested with absolute freedom to terminate theservices of its employees in terms of the contract of service.

"237. In Ramana v. International Airport Authority of India, (1979) 3 SCR. 1014 : (AIR 1979 SC. 1628),this Court held that expression of welfare and social service functions necessitates the State toassume control over natural and economic resources and large scale natural and commercialactivities. For the attainment of socio-economic justice, there is vast and notable increase offrequency with which ordinary citizens come into relationship of direct encounters with the State.The Government in a welfare state is the regulator and dispenser of social services and provider oflarge number of benefits, including jobs etc. Thousands of people are employed in Central/StateGovernment Services and also under local authorities. The Government, therefore, cannot actarbitrarily. It does not stand in the same position as a private individual. In a democraticGovernment by rule of law, the executive Government or any of its officers cannot be held to bepossessed of arbitrary power over the interests of the individuals. Every action of the Governmentmust be informed with reason and should be free from arbitrariness. That is the very essence ofrule of law. It was further held (at pp. 1637-38 of AIR) :

"It must, therefore, be taken to be the law that where the Government is dealing with the public,whether by way of giving jobs or entering into contracts ..........the Government cannot actarbitrarily at its sweet will and, like a private individual, deal with any person it pleases, but itsaction must be in conformity with standard of norm which, is not arbitrary, irrational or irrelevant.The power of discretion of the Government in the matter of grant of largess including award of jobsmust be conditioned and structured by rational relevant and non-discriminatorystandard or norm and if the Government departs from such standard or norm in any particular caseor cases, the action or the Government would be liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown bythe Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle whichin itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory."

This statement of law, though was made in the context of contractual relations, it is a general lawwith width and amplitude which permeates the entire spectrum of actions, legislative as well as executive.

"238. The Constitution is the permanent law of the land and its preamble is an integral part thereof. Itassures Social and Economic Justice and also accords equality of opportunity and status as well asequality before law assuring dignity of the individual. The Constitution Forty Second AmendmentAct introduced "Socialism" in the Preamble and made explicit of what

is latent in the ConstitutionalScheme. Article 14 accords equal protection of law and equality before law. Article 16(1) providesright to an appointment or employment to an office or post under the State. Art. 19(1)(g) assuresright to occupation or avocation. Art. 21 assures right to life and any deprivation is as per theprocedure established by law. In General Manager, Southern Railway v. Ranqachari, (1968)2 SCR586 : ( AIR 1962 SC 36), it was held that matters relating to employment would include salary, increments, leave,gratuity, pension, age of superannuation etc. Similarly, in respect of appointments, such matterswould include all the terms and conditions of service pertaining to the said office. All those mattersare included in the expression "matters relating to employment or appointment" within themeaning of Art. 16(1) of the Constitution. This was reiterated in State of M.P. v. Shardul Singh,(1970) 3 SCR 302 at 305--306: ( 1971 Lab IC (N) 5), that conditions of service include holding of posts right fromthe time of appointment till his retirement beyond it like pension etc. The middle class, lowermiddle class and lower classes' educated youths generally, if not mainly, depend on employment orappointment to an office or posts under the States which include corporations, statutory body orinstrumentality under Art. 12 of the Constitution as source to their livelihood and means toimprove their intellectual excellence and finer facets of life individually and collectively as a memberof the society so that himself and his dependents are economically sound, educationally advancedand socially dignified so that the nation constantly rises to standards of higher level in an egalitariansocial order under rule of law as is obligated under Art.51A(J ).

"264. Thus it could be held that Art. 14 read with Art.16(1) accords right to an equality or an equaltreatment consistent with the principles of natural justice. Any law made or action taken by theemployer, corporate statutory or instrumentality under Article 12 must act fairly, justly andreasonably. Right to fair treatment is an essential inbuilt of natural justice. Exercise of unbridled and uncanalised discretionary power impinges upon the right of the citizen; vesting of discretion isno wrong provided it is exercised purposively judiciously and without prejudice. Wider thediscretion, the greater the chances of abuse. Absolute discretion is destructive of freedom than ofman's other inventions. Absolute discretion marks the beginning of the end of the liberty. Theconferment of absolute power to dismiss a permanent employee is antithesis to justness or fairtreatment. The exercise of discretionary power wide of mark would bread arbitrary, unreasonable orunfair actions and would not be consistent with reason and justice. The provisions of a statute,regulations or rules that empower an employer or the 'management to dismiss, remove or reduce inrank of an employee, must be consistent with just, reasonable and fair procedure. It would, further,be held that right to public employment which includes right to continued public

employment tillthe employee is superannuated as per rules or compulsorily retired or duly terminated in accordancewith the procedure established by law is an integral part of right to livelihood which in turn isan integral facet of right to life assured by Art.21 of the Constitution. Any procedure prescribed todeprive such a right to livelihood or continued employment must be just, fair and reasonableprocedure. In other words an employee in a public employment also must not be arbitrarily, unjustly and unreasonably be deprived of his/her livelihood which is ensured in continued employment tillit is terminated in accordance with just, fair and reasonable procedure. Otherwise any law or rule inviolation thereof is void.

"267. Therefore, it is no well tuned solace to say that in a court of law at the fag end of the currier orafter superannuation in the interregnum which often over takes the litigation, that the employee would be meted out with justice (a grave uncertainty and exposing to frustrating procrastinationof judicial process and expenses and social humiliation). Before depriving an employee of the meansof livelihood to himself and his dependents, i.e. job, the procedure prescribed for such deprivationmust, therefore, be just, fair and reasonable under Arts. 21 and 14 and when infringes Art. 19(1)(g)must be subject to imposing reasonable restrictions under Art. 19(5). Conferment of power on ahigh rank officer is not always an assurance, in particular when the moral standards are generallydegenerated that the power would be exercised objectively, reasonably, conscientiously, fairly andjustly without inbuilt protection to an employee. Even officers who do their duty honestly andconscientiously are subject to great pressures and pulls. Therefore, the competing claims of the"public interest" as against "individual interest" of the employees are to be harmoniously blended soas to serve the societal need consistent with the constitutional scheme."

[10] Mr. A. Vashum, learned Government Advocate appearing for the

respondents submitted that after taking into consideration about the

conduct of the petitioner of having nexus with armed underground

organisation, the petitioner's conduct of insubordination and dereliction of

duties and negligence in discharging his duties as well as his absence

from duties and his place of posting, the authorities have terminated the

service of the petitioner by issuing the impugned memorandum.It has also

been submitted by the learned Government Advocate that the petitioner

had been engaged on contract basis and his service conditions are

governed by the terms and conditions set out in the agreement executed

between the authorities and the petitioner and accordingly, the provisions

under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India is not applicable to the

petitioner.It has further been submitted by the learned Government

Advocate that as the petitioner has violated condition No. 3 of the contract

agreement by not performing the duties assigned to him from time to time

on account of his continuous absence from station, impugned

memorandum dated 06.05.2020 was rightly issued by the authority

thereby terminating the service of the petitioner and accordingly, no

illegality had been committed by the authorities while issuing the impugned

memorandum and no interference is warranted from this Court. The

learned Government Advocate lastly submitted that the present writ

petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed outright.

[11] On careful perusal of the impugned memorandum, which had been

reproduced hereinabove, it can be clearly seen that many serious

allegations have been made against the petitioner and that on the basis of

such serious allegations, the contractual engagement of the petitioner had

been terminated. It is also an undisputed fact that no enquiry had been

held against the petitioner in connection with the allegations made against

him and the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself

against such serious allegations. The respondents have issued the

impugned memorandum thereby terminating the contractual engagement

of the petitioner on the basis of such serious allegations without holding

any enquiry and without establishing or proving any of the allegations

made against the petitioner. In view of such established facts, it cannot be

construed by any stress of imagination that the termination of the petitioner

from his contractual engagement is a termination simpliciter and that the

service of the petitioner had been terminated only for violation of the terms

and conditions of the contractual appointment. As the contractual

engagement of the petitioner had been terminated on the basis of serious

allegations made against him, in my considered view the termination is

punitive in nature and moreover, in view of the serious allegations made

against the petitioner in the impugned termination order, a stigma has

been cast upon the petitioner, which is likely to jeopardize his future

service prospects.

In my considered view, such punitive action should not be

taken against the petitioner without establishing or proving the serious

allegations made against him by holding a proper enquiry and after giving

reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself. Accordingly, this

Court is of the considered view that the contract engagement of the

petitioner had been terminated arbitrarily and in violation of the well

established principle of natural justice and that the authorities have acted

illegally in issuing the impugned memorandum dated 06.05.2020. In the

result, the impugned memorandum is hereby quashed and set aside as

being not sustainable in the eyes of law. The respondents are directed to

re-engage the petitioner as District Programme Manager (DPM) in the

State Health Society, National Health Mission, Manipur on contract basis,

if such service is still required.

[12] With the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition is disposed of.

Parties are to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

FR/NFR

Lhaineichong