APHC010578782024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3460] MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION NO: 30561/2024 Between: 1. PILLI SURESH, S/O NAGESWARA RAO, AGE 38 YRS, OCC DPO (DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER) NHM R/O. D.NO. MIG 108, HOUSING BOARD COLONY BHIMAVARAM, W.G DIST, A.P. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF AP, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL / SPECIAL SECRETARY, MEDICAL AND HEALTH DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, VELAGAPUDI, GUNTUR DISTRICT.-A 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, AND MISSION DIRECTOR NHM, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DIST, A.P 3. THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, BHIMAVARAM, W.G. DISTRICT 4. THE DISTRICT MEDICAL AND HEALTH OFFICER, BHIMAVARAM, W.G. DISTRICT 5. THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME MONITORING OFFICER, NHM, BHIMAVARAM, W.G. DISTRICT ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more 2 particularly one in the nature of Writ of MANDAMUS declaring the action of the 4th respondent issued in proceedings Rc.No.2350/E3/NHM/2024, dt.21.11.2024 served on 06-12-2024 terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of DPO -NUHM as it is no longer required in the Department as illegal, arbitrary, un justified, violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to law, consequentially set aside the said order and continue the petitioner in the post held him with all consequential benefits and to pass such other order. IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation of impugned termination order issued by of the 4th respondent issued in proceedings Rc.No.2350/ E3/ NHM/ 2024 dt:21.11.2024 served on 06-12-2024 terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of DPO -NUHM, pending disposal of the main writ petition and to pass such other order. Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. AISHWARYA NAGULA Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES IV The Court made the following: 3 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.30561 of 2024 ORDER: 1. The present Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of Respondent No.4 in issuing impugned Proceedings vide Rc.No.2350/E3/NHM/2024, dated 21.11.2024 terminating the services of the Petitioner from the post of DPO-NUHM, as illegal and arbitrary. 2. The brief facts are as follows; The Petitioner was appointed as District Programme Officer in NUHM after due selection process on contract basis in the year 2019 through District Selection Committee constituted vide G.O.Rt.No.217, HM & FW (J2) Department dated 26.02.2001. While so, on the basis of the complaint given by one Smt. T.S.R.R. Rajeswari, ANM Grade-III, Tadepalligudem Urban dated 05.10.2024, a show-cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on 21.11.2024 alleging certain lapses i.e. (i) Abnormal delay in preparation of salary bills of Community Organizers and Medical Officer Assistants; (ii) The Petitioner had caused inconvenience to the District administration while submitting the reports to the State and failed to do follow-up action on the pending reports; and (iii) A complaint was raised by Smt. T.S.R.R. Rajeswari, ANM Grade-III, Tadepalligudem Urban stating that the Petitioner had collected an amount of Rs.20,000/- through a messenger by name Ms. Rajitha for dropping Articles of Charge initiated against her. 4 3. The show-cause notice further mentions that the services of the Petitioner were surrendered to the Managing Director of NHM, Mangalagiri for initiating disciplinary action on 08.10.2024 and that the services of the Petitioner are no longer required in the Department and proposed to terminate him from contract service under disciplinary proceedings for violation of Conduct Rules. 4. The Petitioner was also issued a show-cause notice on 25.11.2023 alleging that the Petitioner did not handover attendance sheets to the concerned NHM Clerk for scrutiny and the Petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation within a period of three (3) days. 5. The grievance of the Petitioner is that pursuant to the impugned notice dated 21.11.2024 the Petitioner is not being permitted to discharge the duties and submits that the impugned notice is virtually showing dismissal from service. Hence, the present Writ Petition is filed. 6. A Counter-Affidavit was filed by Respondent No.4 reiterating the allegations made against the Petitioner and it was stated that Respondent No.2 had given instructions to terminate the Petitioner by issuing show-cause notice and by giving one month time as per Contract Service Rules. Accordingly, the impugned notice was issued to the Petitioner. 5 7. Contentions: The learned counsel for the Petitioner M/s. Aiswarya Nagula would submit that the notice of dismissal without furnishing any reason cannot be sustained. 8. The learned Assistant Government Pleader Sri S. Raju would submit that the allegations in the impugned order are serious in nature and the Petitioner was rightly terminated in terms of the contractual clauses and no interference is called for. 9. Heard the respective counsels. 10. Reasoning: The impugned order amounts to termination of the Petitioner on stigmatic grounds and such an order of termination would hamper the future employment. It is too well settled even in the case of a contract employee, a stigmatic order of termination cannot be sustained without conducting enquiry after adhering to the procedural fairness and in compliance with the principles of natural justice. 11. The Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and Others v. Brijesh Kumar and Another1 had held that if the termination of a contract employee is on account of misconduct, enquiry should be conducted. Similar view was taken in K. Raghupathi v. State of Uttar Pradesh2 and Swathi Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh3. 1 (2024) INSC 638] 2 2022 (6) SCC 346 3 2024 INSC 620 6 12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the impugned Proceedings issued by Respondent No.4 vide Rc.No.2350/E/NHM/2024 dated 21.11.2024 and leaving it open to the Respondent-authorities to conduct enquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. It is made clear that the salary of the Petitioner from the date of impugned order till date would be subject to the outcome of the enquiry against the Petitioner. 14. No order as to costs. 15. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ NYAPATHY VIJAY, J Date: 05.01.2026 IS 7 HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY WRIT PETITION No.30561 of 2024 Date: 05.01.2026 IS