1 2025:CGHC:6342 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 2708 of 2018 1 - Smt. Arti Kar W/o W/o Vijay Mohan Pandey Aged About 30 Years Posted As Accountant Cum Data Entry Assistant (Pada) Primary Health Center Sankra Block Pithora District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Chhattisgarh New Raipur, Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Collector, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 4 - The Chief Medical And Health Officer, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 5 - The Block Medical Officer, Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh 6 - Smt. Swati Mahilang Rural Medical Assistant, Primary Health Center, Sankra Block Pithora, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Anjali Pradhan, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Vikas Pradhan, Advocate. For State : Mr. Vinay Pandey, Dy. A.G. For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anurag Sonwani, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate. For Respondent No.6 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board Digitally signed by SMT NIRMALA RAO -2- 04.02.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 2.11.2017 issued by respondent No.4 whereby the petitioner has been removed from the services according to Clause 14.2 of the Chhattisgarh Human Resources Policy, 2014. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Primary Health Centre Level Accountant-cum-Data Assistant on 4.8.2010. She would contend that she was harassed at the workplace by respondent No.6, therefore, a complaint was made and an inquiry was conducted. She would further submit that according to the letter dated 29.6.2017, the allegations made by the petitioner against respondent No.6 were found to be substantiated, and respondent No.6 was given a warning by the higher authorities. She would further contend that the petitioner could not join the services till 2.11.2017, and as a result, her services were terminated vide order dated 2.11.2017 by respondent No.4. She would also contend that no opportunity of hearing was afforded and there were valid reasons for the delay in joining the services. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels for the respondents would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. They would submit that the petitioner was a contractual employee appointed according to the Chhattisgarh Human Resources Policy, 2014. They would contend that, as per Clause 14.2 of the Policy of 2014, if an employee is found involved in a criminal case, financial irregularities, or any kind of misconduct, his services can be terminated after affording a due opportunity for hearing. They 3 would also contend that show-cause notices were issued to the petitioner on 5.10.2017 (Annexure-P/4) and 17.10.2017 (Annexure-P/6), but the petitioner failed to resume her services. Therefore, the order Annexure-P/1 was passed by the Competent Authority. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record. 5. The petitioner was a contractual employee appointed to the post of Primary Health Centre Level Accountant-cum-Data Assistant on 4.8.2010. A complaint was made by the petitioner against a co- worker, which was inquired into, and respondent No.6 was given a warning through an order dated 29.6.2017. The petitioner remained absent from 1.5.2017 till the date of the order impugned i.e. 2.11.2017. During this period, notices were issued to the petitioner on 5.10.2017 and 17.10.2017, but she did not resume her services. Therefore, according to Clause 14.2 of the Policy of 2014, her services were terminated. 6. Taking into consideration the conduct of the petitioner and the fact that she was afforded sufficient opportunity, in the opinion of this Court, no case is made out for interference in the matter. 7. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi