2025:JHHC:34577 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 2212 of 2013 Seema Deepika Khalkho, wife of: Dr. Lal Manjhi, Resident of: Village- Samlong Bhuiyan Toli, P.O.: Namkum, P.S.: Namkum, District- Ranchi. ... … Petitioner(s) Versus 1.The State of Jharkhand 2. The Principal Secretary, Health and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S.: Doranda, District: Ranchi. 3. The Director-in-Chief, Health Services, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi officiating from Nepal House, P.O. Doranda, P.S. Doranda, District: Ranchi. 4. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi officiating from Namkum, Ranchi, P.O.: Namkum, P.S.: Namkum, Ranchi. 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, officiating from Court Compound, Near Kutchary, P.O.: G.P.O, P.S.: Kotwali, District: Ranchi. 6. The In-Charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Chanho, P.O. & P.S.: Chanho, District: Ranchi ... … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN For the Petitioner(s) : Mrs. Sweta Shukla, Amicus For the Respondent(s) : Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, GP-III -------- Order No. 11 /Dated: 19th November 2025 The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: “1.(I) For issuance of a writ of or in the nature of certiorari for quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.02.2013 vide Memo No. 98/गो० passed by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi whereby and whereunder the petitioner's service has been terminated without giving any show-cause notice alleging that petitioner was not available in her roster duty on 10.02.2013. She attended her duty after 1.20 hours late on that day. since petitioner is working as Medical Officer (Contract) for last ten years continuously under Health Medical Education & Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi. AND/OR (II) For the issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction for directing the respondents to immediately and forthwith reinstate the petitioner on the post of Medical Officer, Primary Health Center, Chanho, Ranchi. AND/OR (III) For the issuance of any other appropriate direction(s)/writ(s)/ order(s) for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 2025:JHHC:34577 2 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working under Health Medical Education and Family Welfare Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi for ten years and she was posted as Medical Officer (Contract) in Primary Health Center, Chanho, Ranchi for five years. The name of the petitioner was short-listed for regularization of service in the Department of Health and Family Welfare, Government of Jharkhand. All of a sudden, on the basis of report of Block Development Officer, Chanho, Ranchi and In-Charge Medical Officer, Chanho, Ranchi, the service of the petitioner which was on contract basis was terminated by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi vide Memo No. 98/गो० dated 10.02.2013 due to unavailability in duty roster on 10.02.2013. Being aggrieved with the action of the respondent-authorities, the petitioner has filed this writ application. 3. From order-sheet it appears that Mrs. Sweta Shukla, learned counsel, was appointed as Amicus to assist this Court vide order dated 18.08.2025. 4. Learned Amicus draws attention of this Court towards Annexure-3 which is the order of termination and submits that on the basis of being absent from duty, the petitioner was terminated from service, however, no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in order to rebut the allegation. She submits that now it is a settled principle that if an order is stigmatic then at least principle of natural justice should be followed. 5. Learned Amicus refers to the judgment in “Dr. Vijayakumaran C.P.V v. Central University of Kerala & Ors.” 1 wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that a full-fledged enquiry is required even if the contractual employee is terminated if the order of termination is stigmatic 1 (2020) 12 SCC 426 2025:JHHC:34577 3 in nature. Learned Amicus further refers to the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.(S) No. 3924 of 2023 tilted “Neelam Kumari v. The State of Jharkhand” and contends that in the said case the impugned order was quashed and the respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner. However, a liberty was given to the respondents to proceed with the fresh enquiry after following principle of natural justice. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid fact that show-cause notice was not given to the petitioner but he contends that the petitioner was a contractual employee and the terms of contract was fulfilled. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record and the impugned order, it appears that an allegation has been made in the impugned order that the petitioner was not present in the concerned hospital at the relevant time and further it is alleged that she usually remains absent in the hospital. This part of the order is certainly stigmatic in nature and admittedly no show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner for termination from service. 8. Accordingly on this score alone, the impugned order dated 10.02.2013 vide Memo No. 98/गो० passed by the Deputy Commissioner- cum-District Magistrate, Ranchi is quashed and set-aside. 9. The concerned respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith; however, they would be at liberty to proceed with a fresh enquiry on the same allegation after following principle of natural justice, if so advised. 10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the instant writ application stands allowed. 11. The Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee shall reimburse the learned Amicus on submission of bills. Fee for the learned Amicus shall be as per the existing guidelines. 2025:JHHC:34577 4 12. Let a copy of this order be given to the Secretary, Jharkhand High Court Legal Services Committee for the needful. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 19th November, 2025 Amit Uploaded on 04/12/2025