[2026:RJ-JP:247] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18901/2012 Dr. Abdul Khalid Ansari S/o Shri Abdul Rashid, aged about 42 years, R/o Vigyan Nagar, Kota, presently working as Health Manager at Jhalawar Medical College Hospital, Jhalawar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through the Principle Secretary, Health Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Managing Director, NRHM, Swasthaya Bhawan, C- Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 3. Director (Public Health) Swasthya Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 4. The Dean/Principal and Controller, Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar. 5. The Chief Medical and Health Officer, Jhalawar. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 770/2014 Abdul Khalid Ansari S/o Shri Abdul Rashid Ansari, aged about 44 Years 2 Months, R/o House No.93, Vigyan Nagar, Kota (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary Medical and Health Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Managing Director, NRHM, Swastha Bhawan, C-Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur. 3. The Dean/Principal and Controller, Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG with Mr. Deepak Mittal [2026:RJ-JP:247] (2 of 11) [CW-18901/2012] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 06/01/2026 1. Since both the above writ petitions involved almost similar facts and controversy, therefore, with the consent of both the parties, both the writ petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Facts in brief are that the petitioner was appointed as Health Manager in Jhalawar Medical College Hospital, Jhalawar on contractual basis on 13.06.2008. As per appointment order dated 13.06.2008, terms of appointment of petitioner shall be regulated as per the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents, and appointment shall be of temporary nature. It was made clear that the services of the petitioner could have been terminated without giving any prior notice. Agreement dated 02.07.2008 executed between the parties has also been placed on record as Annexure-3, in which it has been clarified that period of contractual appointment of the petitioner shall be from 02.07.2008 to 01.07.2009. He shall be entitled for consolidated amount of Rs.25,000/- per month. Clause 6 of the agreement states that any misconduct on the part of the petitioner, if proven, after an enquiry, the employer shall be entitled to terminate the services of the petitioner. Clause 7 deals with termination in other cases, where despite there being no misconduct, contract of services can be terminated with notice of one month on either side or by depositing/paying one month's contract amount in lieu of notice. In appointment order dated 13.06.2008, it was clearly [2026:RJ-JP:247] (3 of 11) [CW-18901/2012] stipulated that the petitioner will not be entitled for any other employment. 3. A complaint was received by the respondents that the petitioner has been serving as a Health Manager in the Office of Medical College & Hospital, Jhalawar as well as also drawing salary from the Office of Chief Medical & Health Officer, Jhalawar. Thus, there was allegation of drawing salary simultaneously from two different places. When aforesaid misconduct of the petitioner came to surface, the petitioner accepted his guilt and deposited the amount vide two cheques for a sum of Rs.8,96,955/-. 4. One enquiry committee was constituted to investigate into the matter and to give a fact-finding report. The enquiry committee submitted its report and found that the petitioner could not have drawn double salary from two different places simultaneously and the fact was also taken into consideration that the petitioner himself has confessed and has redeposited the amount of salary in the tune of Rs.8,96,955/-. Report of the committee has been placed as Annexure-R4 along with reply to the writ petition. In the report of committee a finding has been given that the petitioner has deliberately drawn salary from two different places and it was also given out that although the principal amount of Rs.8,96,955/- was deposited by the petitioner, yet the interest was to be calculated on such amount, for which calculation was to be required to be made through Senior Accounts Officer, so that recovery of interest could be effected from the petitioner. It was also recommended by the committee that disciplinary action be taken by the appointing authority. [2026:RJ-JP:247] (4 of 11) [CW-18901/2012] 5. Pursuant to aforesaid enquiry report, order dated 11.10.2012 was passed whereby on account of being indulged in misconduct, services of the petitioner were terminated with immediate effect. 6. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18901/2012, the petitioner has challenged the letter dated 28.09.2012 whereby pursuant to enquiry, the Project Director, NRHM directed the Dean, Jhalawar Medical College, Jhalawar, to terminate the services of the petitioner and has also challenged the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Dean of the college in compliance of directions given by the Project Director, NRHM. 7. So far as, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 770/2014 is concerned, it has been stated by the petitioner that petitioner was not aware of the enquiry report and since it was annexed by the respondents along with reply to S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18901/2012 and since the report was causing prejudice to the petitioner, therefore, he has challenged the same by way of filing an another S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.770/2014. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of the petitioner in drawing salary from two different places was quite bonafide, which is reflected from his own conduct where only on pointing out such discrepancy, the petitioner himself had voluntarily redeposited the amount of Rs.8,96,955/-, therefore, after depositing the disputed amount, there remains no misconduct on the part of the petitioner, hence, taking a severe action against the petitioner is totally arbitrary and is in violation of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. [2026:RJ-JP:247] (5 of 11) [CW-18901/2012] 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the termination orders dated 28.09.2012 & 11.10.2012 are also against the terms and conditions of agreement dated 02.07.2008, where it has been mentioned that in case of any misconduct, termination can take place only after an enquiry. In the present case, no enquiry under the provisions of The Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1958’) has taken place and thus no proper opportunity has been given to the petitioner to defend his case. Therefore, the impugned orders also suffer from violation of Principles of Natural Justice as well as procedure contemplated in the Rules of 1958. 10. While pressing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.770/2014, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry conducted in the instant matter was simply an eye wash and empty formality. Relevant documents were neither supplied to the petitioner nor was he given proper opportunity to defend before the enquiry committee. Report of such enquiry committee was also served upon the petitioner, therefore, on the basis of such one sided enquiry report, harshest action of termination of services of the petitioner could not have been taken, therefore, he prayed for quashing the enquiry report also. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that although he has worked from the month of July to September, 2008 and from March, 2011 onwards till the date of termination of services in July, 2012, yet salary for the aforesaid month has not been paid to the petitioner for no plausible reason and he has [2026:RJ-JP:247] (6 of 11) [CW-18901/2012] prayed for a direction to the respondents for releasing such salary with interest. 12. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents vehemently opposed the writ petitions narrating the same to be misconceived, baseless and misleading. It is submitted that in letter dated 28.09.2012 there was reference to enquiry report and action of termination of services of the petitioner has been taken on the basis of such enquiry report, therefore, the petitioner can not say that he was not aware of any such enquiry against him. Therefore, when the termination letter dated 28.09.2012 and consequential order dated 11.10.2012 have been challenged by the petitioner by way of filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18901/2012, no separate cause of action was available to the petitioner to file S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.770/2014 subsequently only to challenge the enquiry report. Hence, the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.770/2014 is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected. 13. So far as the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18901/2012, it has been submitted by the learned Additional Advocate General that the petitioner was accused of drawing simultaneous salaries from two different sources whereas appointment letter dater 13.06.2008 was quite clear that the petitioner shall not have any right to have any other employment at any other place, still quite knowingly and deliberately, he has drawn salaries from two different places, which is a serious misconduct. It is further submitted that such allegation levelled by the Department has nowhere been denied by the petitioner, rather he himself has admitted his guilt and has redeposited the amount of [2026:RJ-JP:247] (7 of 11) [CW-18901/2012] Rs.8,96,955/- which has fortified the fact that allegations were correct and the petitioner was guilty of the allegations levelled against him. 14. It is also submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that in terms of agreement dated 02.07.2008, enquiry was conducted by the respondents and in enquiry also, it was found that the petitioner was guilty of deliberately drawing from two different places which was a serious misconduct and therefore, a recommendation was made to take a disciplinary action against the petitioner. It is further submitted that term 'enquiry' used in Clause 6 of agreement dated 02.07.2008 has been misconstrued by the petitioner. The term 'enquiry' used in agreement, simply refers to a fact-finding enquiry and not an enquiry under the Rules of 1958. Before taking any adverse action against the petitioner, due enquiry as per agreement was conducted by a committee, which has given a categorical finding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct. 15. It is further submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that admittedly the petitioner was not a substantive employee appointed as per the recruitment rules and was simply a contractual employee, therefore, he can enforce his right only within the four corners of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the employer. Provisions of the Rules of 1958 are not applicable in his case, therefore, he cannot seek any protection under such Rules. 16. It is also submitted by learned Additional Advocate General that action has been taken by the respondents strictly in accordance with the provisions of the agreement as well as the [2026:RJ-JP:247] (8 of 11) [CW-18901/2012] appointment letter, without there being any malice or prejudice against the petitioner, in which there is no infirmity or illegality, therefore, he prayed for dismissing these writ petitions. 17. However, learned Additional Advocate General fairly submits that so far as remaining salary of the petitioner is concerned, in case, the same has not been paid, then after examining the due amount, the same shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner. 18. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 19. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was not a substantive employee in respondent-Department and was engaged on contractual basis. Therefore, terms and conditions of his services are governed by agreement dated 02.07.2008 and appointment order dated 13.06.2008. 20. It is also not disputed by either of the parties that the petitioner has drawn salary from two different places simultaneously, for which he was not entitled in view of specific stipulation in appointment order dater 13.06.2008. 21. It is a matter of record that the petitioner himself has submitted one written application dated 18.03.2011, wherein he has admitted his guilt and also returned the excess amount of Rs.8,96,955/- by way of submitting two cheques. 22. As regards the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that his guilt has washed off as soon as he has redeposited the wrong/excess amount of Rs.8,96,955/- and his mistake in drawing the double salary simultaneously can no longer be treated as a misconduct, it is sufficient to observe that [2026:RJ-JP:247] (9 of 11) [CW-18901/2012] admitting the guilt does not absolve the petitioner from the misconduct, which he has already committed. Rather such admission fortifies the fact that the allegations levelled against the petitioner were correct. Merely, refunding the excess amount would not preclude the respondents from taking legal action against the petitioner as per terms and conditions of the contract. 23. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that agreement dated 02.07.2008 lays down a condition that in case of any misconduct, enquiry shall be conducted by the respondents and since no enquiry under the Rules of 1958 has been conducted, merely on the basis of fact finding enquiry, his services could not have been terminated. Such argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is totally misconceived and is liable to be rejected for the obvious reason that the term 'enquiry' mentioned in Clause 6 of the agreement does not, by any manner, refers to departmental enquiry pursuant to Rules of 1958. As observed hereinabove, the petitioner was a simply contractual employee and was not a substantive employee, therefore, he cannot seek protection of the Rules of 1958 and his services would rather be governed by the terms and conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. The only requirement before taking any action of termination of services of the petitioner, as contemplated in agreement dated 02.07.2008 was to conduct an enquiry so that no action of termination be taken in hot haste and without crystallization of the facts. In the instant case, admittedly before terminating the services of the petitioner, fact finding enquiry (Annexure-R/4) was conducted by the respondents, which is sufficient for taking any action pursuant to Clause 6(i) of [2026:RJ-JP:247] (10 of 11) [CW-18901/2012] the agreement dated 02.07.2008. In the present matter, where the guilt has already been admitted by the petitioner and the settled proposition of law is that the facts admitted need not be inquired still for the purpose of fairness and in order to make strict compliance of terms and conditions of agreement dated 02.07.2008, enquiry was conducted by the respondents and thereafter on the basis of recommendation of the enquiry committee, action of terminating services of the petitioner has been taken. This Court does not find any illegality or error in action of the respondents. 24. So far as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 770/2014 is concerned, it seeks to challenge the enquiry report, which was the basis of the termination order dated 28.09.2012 and 11.10.2012. It is a matter of fact that reference of enquiry report is very much there in letter dated 28.09.2012, therefore, it cannot be said by the petitioner that he was not aware of such enquiry report, hence, filing a separate petition where challenging such enquiry report (referring it to be an order dated 02.04.2011) is totally misdirected and inconceivable in the facts and circumstances of the case. No fresh cause of action was available to the petitioner to file another writ petition for challenging the enquiry report. Hence, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 770/2014 is not maintainable and, is hereby, dismissed. 25. So far as due salary as prayed by petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18901/2012 is concerned, learned Additional Advocate General has assured this Court that after examination of fact with regard to non-payment for the period he has actually [2026:RJ-JP:247] (11 of 11) [CW-18901/2012] worked, necessary action shall be taken and, in case, the salary is found due, the same shall be released to the petitioner. 26. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and on the basis of above discussion, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 770/2014 is hereby dismissed. So far as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18901/2012 is concerned, challenge of the petitioner to the termination order dated 11.10.2012 and letter dated 28.09.2012 fails, hence, the writ petition is dismissed to that extent. However, so far as claim of the petitioner regarding payment of due salary is concerned, as assured by learned Additional Advocate General, necessary action will be taken by the respondents within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this writ petition. 27. Ordered accordingly. 28. Copy of this order be placed in connected file. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/34-35