1 2025:CGHC:32871 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6560 of 2021  Dinesh Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Pyarelal Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Ashok Bhawan, Uparwara, Abhanpur, Dsitrict Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Health And Family Department Government Of Chhattisgarh Mantralaya, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2. The Director Directorate Of Health Service Government Of Chhattisgarh Indrawati Bhawan Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3. The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Sector -27, Atal Nagar Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 4. Director Epidemic Control, Directorate Epidemic Control, Directorate Of Health Service Government Of Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 5. The Collector District Raipur Chhattisgarh Surveillance Officer Directorate Of Health Services, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Ashutosh Singh Kachhawaha, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 15. 07.2025 1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.17 17:23:59 +0530 2 Constitution of India challenging the order dated 22.10.2021 passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby the contractual services of the petitioner to the post of Data Manager have been discontinued and the period of contract has not been extended on the count that his performance was not found satisfactory. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that on 12.09.2006 the petitioner was appointed as a Data Manager on a contract basis by the office of Chief Medical and Health Officer, District Durg on a fixed pay of Rs. 10,000/- per month. The tenure of the contractual period for 1 year was extended from time to time without any objection thereafter respondent No. 6 issued a show notice dated 02.11.2020 alleging that the petitioner failed to discharge his duties with sincerity, even though discrepancies were found in the report submitted by him pertaining to the Covid-19 Pandemic. The higher officials showed dissatisfaction over it. 3. The petitioner submitted a reply to the show cause on 03.11.2020, wherein he denied the allegations, contending that the actual data was not collected and the report was prepared, as such, there was no misrepresentation with regard to the data. On 05.11.2020, again, a show cause notice was issued, and the reply submitted by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. Thereafter, respondent No. 3 issued a show cause notice on the ground that the information provided by the petitioner is false and there is duplicity in the data of deaths in Covid-19. The petitioner submitted a reply but the respondent terminated the contractual employment of the petitioner vide Annexure P/4 dated 22.10.2021. Against the said order, the instant petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no foundation with regard to forming an opinion regarding the dis-satisfactory 3 performance of the petitioner. He would further submit that the petitioner has filed an affidavit wherein, it is categorically stated that he was entitled to receive 65 marks out of 100 against his Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs). He would also submit that the inference drawn against the petitioner is without foundation, which suffers from perversity and illegality. He would refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench rendered in the matter of State of Chhattisgarh vs. Akhilesh Kumar Mishra, WA No. 322 of 2019 and would submit that without inquiry, the discontinuation of service of the contractual employee is illegal. He would pray to quash the impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that the assessment of the performance of the petitioner was subjective satisfaction of the Chief Health and Medical Officer, wherein negligence was found on the part of the petitioner. He would further submit that the decision of discontinuation of service was taken on the basis of appraisal of ACRs. He would also submit that the petitioner secured 33 marks out of 100 against ACRs, and he should have earned more than 40 marks. He would contend that there is sufficient material against the petitioner for termination of his contractual employment and would pray for the dismissal of the writ petition. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supported the submission made by counsel for respondent No. 3. 7. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 8. From the documents made available to the Court, it is found that no material is placed on record by Respondent No. 3 and the State to demonstrate that the petitioner’s performance was unsatisfactory. It is a well-settled legal position of the law that this Court cannot interfere in the 4 decision but can certainly interfere in the decision-making process adopted by the respondent. The performance of the petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory but what was the reason or material to record such a finding has not been placed on record, which clearly indicates that the decision- making process suffers from non-consideration of the material or consideration of the material which was not relevant for the decision- making process, therefore, in my opinion, the impugned order dated 22.10.2021 is not sustainable under the law and is accordingly quashed. 9. It is informed by the counsel for the respondent that the recruitment process with regard to advertisement issued on 04.09.2023 has not been finalized as stay order is operating in favour of the petitioner, therefore, the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on a contract basis to the post of Data Manager afresh without being influenced by earlier cancellation of contractual appointment order. It is made clear that the petitioner is not entitled to get any back wages or monetary benefit for the intervening period of his contractual appointment. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is allowed. 11. Interim relief granted earlier is hereby vacated. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant