1 2026:CGHC:25816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 4404 of 2026 Dr. Lokendra Kashyap S/o Byas Narayan Kashyap Aged About 33 Years R/o Ward No. 3, Uco Bank Gali, Naila, Janjgir, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare And Medical Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Naya Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - National Health Mission Through Joint Director, Swasthya Bhawan, Third Floor, Sector-19, Nava Raipur Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Commissioner-Cum-Mission Director National Health Mission, Swasthya Bhawan, Third Floor, Sector-19, Nava Raipur, Atal Nagar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 4 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Health And Family Welfare, Nirman Bhawan, District : New Delhi, Delhi ... Respondent (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav P. Shukla, Advocate For Respondent No.1/ State : Ms. Diksha Gouraha, Dy. Govt. Advocate For Respondents No.2 & 3 : Mr. C.J.K. Rao, Advocate For Respondent No.4/ UoI : Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2026.06.24 17:28:52 +0530 2 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU) Order on Board 24/06/2026 1. By the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks quashment of the impugned termination order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3/Commissioner-cum-Mission Director, National Health Mission, Chhattisgarh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vide impugned order dated 11.05.2026, the contractual assignment of the petitioner has been terminated by referring to Clause 34.3 of the Human Resource Policy-2018 framed by the National Health Mission, without affording due opportunity of hearing and, therefore, the same is contrary to the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel further submits that though the contractual assignment of the petitioner has been terminated on the allegation of misconduct, no enquiry, as contemplated under the Policy, has been conducted. He submits that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature and has been passed without following the procedure prescribed under Clause 33 of the Human Resource Policy-2018. Hence, the termination order is contrary to the Policy as well as the principles of natural justice and deserves to be quashed. 3. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.2 & 3, while supporting the impugned order, submits that the termination order has been passed by following Clause 34.3 of the Human Resource Policy-2018. He submits that Clause 33, relied upon by the petitioner, pertains to the procedure for enquiry on a complaint 3 or allegation received against an employee, whereas Clause 34.3 specifically empowers the appointing authority to terminate the contractual appointment of an employee found involved in misconduct after affording an opportunity of hearing. He further submits that in the present case, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and after considering his explanation, the impugned order has been passed. Therefore, according to learned counsel, there is no violation of either the Policy or the principles of natural justice and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the documents appended with the writ petition, including the Human Resource Policy-2018 framed by the National Health Mission. 5. From perusal of the impugned order and the material available on record, it appears that the contractual assignment of the petitioner has been terminated by invoking Clause 34.3 of the Human Resource Policy-2018 on the allegation of misconduct. Clause 34.3 provides that where a contractual employee commits misconduct or is found involved in any criminal or financial irregularity, his contractual appointment may be terminated after affording him an opportunity of hearing. At the same time, Clause 33 of the Policy prescribes a detailed procedure for dealing with allegations of misconduct. The said clause contemplates constitution of an enquiry committee by the employer, conduct of a fair enquiry, recording of statements of the complainant and the delinquent employee, submission of an enquiry report and 4 thereafter taking a decision regarding imposition of punishment. 6. A conjoint reading of Clauses 33 and 34.3 of the Policy makes it clear that where termination is founded upon allegations of misconduct, the same cannot be resorted to merely on the basis of a show cause notice. The allegation of misconduct is first required to be examined in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Clause 33 and only thereafter appropriate action can be taken under Clause 34.3. 7. In the present case, except issuance of a show cause notice and consideration of the reply submitted by the petitioner, no enquiry, as contemplated under Clause 33 of the Policy, appears to have been conducted. No enquiry committee was constituted, no enquiry report was submitted and no finding of misconduct was recorded after following the procedure prescribed under the Policy. Thus, the foundation for invoking Clause 34.3 itself is absent. 8. Furthermore, the impugned order is founded upon allegations of misconduct and, therefore, is stigmatic in nature. It is settled law that even in the case of a contractual employee, a stigmatic order of termination cannot be passed without conducting a proper enquiry and without affording due opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee. 9. In this regard, the Apex Court in Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2139, has reiterated that where termination is founded upon allegations carrying stigma, the same must be preceded by a fair enquiry in accordance with law. 5 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the respondent authorities chose to terminate the contractual assignment of the petitioner on the ground of misconduct, strict adherence to the procedure prescribed under Clause 33 of the Policy-2018 was mandatory. The respondent authorities, however, proceeded to pass the impugned order without conducting any enquiry in terms of the said clause and merely on the basis of a show cause notice. Such action is contrary to the Policy itself and violative of the principles of natural justice. 11. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, and having regard to the provisions contained in Clauses 33 and 34.3 of the Human Resource Policy-2018, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 11.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) has been passed without following the prescribed procedure and in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order is unsustainable in law and deserves to be, and is hereby, quashed. 12. Accordingly, the instant writ petition stands allowed. 13. However, the respondent authorities shall be at liberty to proceed afresh in accordance with law, if so advised, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Sd/- (BIBHU DATTA GURU) JUDGE $. Bhilwar