1 CGHC010171962021 2026:CGHC:30364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 3726 of 2021 1 - Smt. Sonamati W/o Shri Kannilal, Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Beldagi, Tahsil Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - The Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Capital Complex, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Executive Director, State Health Resource Centre, State Health Training Centre Building, Kalibadi, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Chief Municipal Officer And Health Officer, Ambikapur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 4 - Block Health Officer, Community Health Centre, Lakhanpur, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner/s : Ms. Jigyasa Singh, Advocate holding the brief of Shri Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent/ State : Shri Ajay Kumrani, P.L. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board NIRMALA RAO 2 17.07.2026 1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs: “1] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a writ/writs, direction/directions, order/orders quashing the order dated 21.08.2019 (Annexure P/1) and order dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P/5). 2] That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant any other relief(s), which is deemed fit and proper in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case.” 2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Mitanin in the year 2003. It is argued that the respondents did not follow the procedure prescribed in the circular governing the recruitment and removal of Mitanins issued by the State of Chhattisgarh, Health & Family Welfare Department, Raipur dated 24.9.2011. It is also argued that no report was submitted by the Committee of five-member and no decision with regard to removal of the petitioner was taken by a majority of the Committee. Therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 3) On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. He would submit that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the petitioner. He would contend that a show-cause notice was issued and thereafter, enquiry was conducted but he would fairly submit that the decision was not taken by the five-member Committee to remove the petitioner, according to scheme. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on record. 3 5) The procedure with regard to removal of Mitanin is described in Circular dated 24.9.2011 and same is reproduced herein below: " मितानि प्रशि क्षक क परिवता — यदि खण्ड चिकि त्सा अधि री अथवा जिला सामन्वाय  आं लान अनसा री कि सा धिमता किनन प्रचि!क्ष य# साता$षन नहीं' हीं( ता$ उसा प्ररिरीवा  य+ , किवास्ता.ता सामक्ष जिला सामन्वाय द्वा री इन दि! किन1!2 म3 4 गई अपेक्षिक्षता य+ , सा9, म चिसा य#य$न म चिसा प्रकितावान वा :री प्रकितावान  आं री पेरी ,  वाग। इसा सामक्ष  आं री पेरी प्रचि!क्ष $ अपेन य# म3 सा री ला न हींता ए ' म हीं सामय दिय  सा ता हीं(। ए म हीं पेश्चा ता> प्रचि!क्ष  य# , पेन? सान#! री जिला सामन्वाय प्रचि!क्ष $ य# सा पे.थ रीन अथवा  री रीखन , अन! सा किवास्ता.ता बरीण री किडता खण्ड चिकि त्सा अधि री , अध्यक्षता म3 गकिवाता पे  सास्य2 , साधिमकिता $ प्रकिषता री3ग। धिमता किनन प्रचि!क्ष द्वा री कि सा प्र री , गभीरी अकिनयधिमताता अथवा य#क्रम  उ>‌द्देश्य2 वा किवापेरीता आंरीण/ य# कि य  न पेरी भी जिला सामन्वाय‌ साबधिता प्र रीण ,   री प्रकितावान उपेरी$क्ता साधिमकिता $ प्रस्ताता री3ग वा इसा , प्रकिता जिला न$डला अधि री वा री ज्य स्वा स्थ्य सासा न  न्द्र $ उपेलाब्ध री य3ग। साधिमकिता उपेरी$क्ता नसा री प्र प्ता सामक्ष /   प्रकितावान  आं री पेरी साबधिता प्रचि!क्ष $ य# सा पे.थ रीन  साब म3 किनण#य लाग। किनण#य रीन हींता साधिमकिता  न्य9नताम तान सास्य साहींमता हीं$न  किहींए। री ज्य स्वा स्थ्य सासा न  न्द्र अथवा सा लान लाय, स्वा स्थ्य सावा ए द्वा री आंवाश्य ता नसा री प्र रीण2 , री ज्य स्तारी सा   रीवा री साबधिता प्रचि!क्ष $ य# सा पे.थ रीन  साब म3 यन साधिमकिता $ अन!रीण ,  सा ता हीं(। इसा प्र री री ज्य स्तारी सा , गई अन! सा अनसा री साबधिता साधिमकिता द्वा री किनण#य चिलाय  न हीं$ग एवा मख्य चिकि त्सा एवा स्वा स्थ्य अधि री द्वा री इसा , किनगरी न ,  न हीं$ग।" 6) From perusal of the above-quoted provision, it is quite vivid that if the work of a Mitanin is found to be unsatisfactory, a report is required to be submitted by a five-member Committee presided over by the Block Medical and Health Officer. After submission of the report, a separate decision is required to be taken and there must be the concurrence of at least three out of five members with regard to the removal. 4 7) In the present case, though a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, the orders of removal dated 19.8.2019 & 21.8.2019 were issued by the Chief Medical and Health Officer and the Executive Director. However, there is no concurrence of the Five-Member Committee. Therefore, the said orders are not sustainable in the eyes of law, being contrary to the circular dated 24.9.2011. Accordingly, both the orders are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. 8) With regard to the arrears of salary, the petitioner would be at liberty to make a representation before the Competent Authority explaining she was not gainfully employed anywhere during these years. The respondent authorities would be at liberty to initiate a fresh enquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions of circular dated 24.9.2011, if so advised. 9) With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi