HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 11809 of 2024 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Som Kartik Shukla learned counsel for petitioner, learned state counsel for opposite parties 1, 2 and 4 and Mr. Mohit Chandra Advocate holding brief on behalf of Mr. Punit Chandra learned counsel for opposite party No.3. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 10th September, 2024, whereby petitioner's contractual service as Medical Officer in U.P. Provincial Medical Services has been terminated/dismissed on allegations pertaining to illegal gratification. 3. On 17th December, 2024, following interim order had been passed in this petition:- "1. Heard Sri Som Kartik Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel for the respondents. 2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was previously working as Medical Officer in U.P. Provincial Medical Services and subsequent to his superannuation on 30.1.2016 he was appointed as Eye Consultant in District Hospital, Raebareli on contract basis on 1.1.2017. The said contract of the petitioner was renewed from year to year till passing of the impugned order dated 10.9.2024 by which his contract has been terminated on the ground that the petitioner has been found to be involved in accepting illegal gratification from a patient for conducting a cataract operation. In the impugned order which has been passed by Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Som Kartik Shukla, Ravindra Kumar Ravi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Puneet Chandra Dr. Ajay Kumar Vaidya .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical And Health Deptt., Lucknow And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) Chief Medical Officer, Lucknow on 10.9.2024 it has been stated that a news item was published by which it was stated that the petitioner has accepted illegal gratification of Rs.4300/- for conducting an operation. The respondents on coming to know of the said incident had appointed an inquiry committee to look into the veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner. 3. The inquiry report has been placed before this Court by learned Standing counsel according to which statement of the complainant as well as the stand of the petitioner was duly considered by the said committee. The petitioner in his submissions before the committee had denied the allegations and submitted that he was not the doctor who conducted operation of the mother of the complainant. In fact, the operation was performed upon her by another doctor, namely Dr. Shakya. He has further submitted that through online transaction dated 8.4.2024 a sum of money was transferred to his account which information he received when on 10.4.2024 he went to the branch of the said bank where he was informed that the said transfer has wrongly been done and the amount credited to his account has to be returned back from where it was sent. The complainant, on the other hand, had clearly stated that it was the petitioner who had taken illegal gratification of Rs.4000/- for conducting the cataract operation and considering the aforesaid material the inquiry committee came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient material to implicate the petitioner for accepting the illegal gratification from the complainant for conducting surgery on his mother and further opined that there is no direct link between the operation conducted on the mother of the complaint and demand made by the petitioner. It is on the aforesaid inquiry report that the impugned order has been passed. 4. Considering the aforesaid report, it is clear that even the inquiry report did not implicate the petitioner for demand or accepting illegal gratification and in absence of any unequivocal finding against the petitioner with regard to his involvement in demand of illegal gratification, the impugned order terminating the contract could not have been passed. It is submitted that even otherwise the contract of the petitioner was till 31.3.2025. 5. We have also perused the terms of the contract which provides that service of the petitioner can be terminated at once by giving one month's notice unless and until there are clear allegation of fraud or involvement of the petitioner in any offence. This Court is of the considered opinion that it was open for the respondents to have invoked clause 5 and terminated his service without detailing or narrating the incident on the basis of the incident which was the subject matter of the inquiry but once they have thought it fit to end the contract on the basis of implication of the petitioner for WRIA No. 11809 of 2024 2 demand of illegal gratification then unless and until there was clear and unequivocal evidence available on record, the impugned order could not have been passed. In light of the above, the matter requires consideration. Let counter affidavit be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within two weeks thereafter. 6. List on 14.2.2025. 7. Till the next date of listing, the impugned order dated 10.9.2024 shall be kept in abeyance. 8. It is made clear that passing of the interim order will not enable the petitioner to continue beyond the terms of the contract unless and until specific order is paced by the respondents in this regard or the contract of the petitioner is renewed. " 4. It is admitted between the parties and as indicated in paragraph No.4 of interim order that the term of contract of petitioner was only uptil April to 31st March, 2025. 5. Since the aforesaid period has already elapsed without renewal or continuance of petitioner on contract basis, the petition has been rendered infructuous and is accordingly consigned to record without any adverse effect on any benefit granted to petitioner. November 20, 2025 prabhat WRIA No. 11809 of 2024 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench