Dismissed

Sri P Maruthi v. the Mission Director

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2024WP/20862/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the discontinuation of the petitioner's services as District Accounts Manager. The Court held the termination was not stigmatic, did not require a mandatory enquiry, and was valid since the Director of NHM was taken into confidence. The petition was meritless and dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; petitioner not entitled to continuation of services or salary arrears.

Sri P Maruthi Vs the Mission Director — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:39128 WP No. 20862 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 20862 OF 2024 (S-DIS)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. P. MARUTHI S/O. PUTTASWAMY AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AS DISTRICT ACCOUNTS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, NO.207, 2^ND FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, CHAPARUKALLU, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562110 R/AT 2^ND B LINK ROAD 2^ND CROSS, MARUTHI NAGAR, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKURU DISTRICT-572102

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RANGANATHA S JOIS, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE MISSION DIRECTOR NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, KARNATAKA, 1^ST FLOOR, AROGYA SOUDHA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560021.

¶14

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, CHAPPARAKALLU, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110

¶15

THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER NO.207, 2^ND FLOOR

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:39128 WP No. 20862 of 2024

¶18

DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, CHAPPARAKALLU, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

¶19

THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE AND CHILD HEALTH OFFICER, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, CHAPPARAKALLU, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562110.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. PRINCE ISAC, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶22

SRI. M.S.DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. NHM/RCH/BR/RD-16/2024-25 DATED 07.06.2024 PASSED BY THE 2^ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND NO.NHM/RCH/BR/RD31/2024-25 DATED 18.07.2024 ISSUED BY 3^RD RESPONDENT VIDE ANNEXURE-K, PERUSE AND QUASH AS UNDER WHICH THE SERVICES OF THE PETITIONER HAVE BEEN ORDERED TO BE DISMISSED AND NOT CONTINUED FOR THE YEAR 2024-25, PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAME AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, MALAFIDE AND DISCRIMINATORY AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ARTICLE 311 OF THE CONSTITUTION AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has called in question an order bearing No.NHM/RCH/BR/RD-16/2024-25, dated 07.06.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 and consequent order bearing No.NHM/RCH/BR/RD-31/2024-25, dated 18.07.2024 passed by

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39128 WP No. 20862 of 2024

¶29

the respondent No.3. The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to continue his services in the post of District Accounts Manager and to pay him salary and arrears from the date of it falling due and to continue his service, until enquiry is conducted in accordance with law.

¶30

(i) The petitioner contends that the respondent No.1 issued a notification dated 06.11.2018 inviting eligible applicants for the post of District Accounts Manager for Bangalore Rural District on contract basis. A walk-in interview was scheduled on 14.11.2018. The petitioner faced the interview and was selected and an offer letter was issued on 04.12.2018. The contract was valid upto 31.03.2019. He contends that from the date of his appointment, he was working to the satisfaction of his superiors without any blemish. (ii) When things stood thus, the petitioner was served with a notice dated 29.02.2024 regarding non-payment of certain bills. He submitted a reply on 01.03.2024 contending that the delay if any was not attributable to him, but he had forwarded it to the next higher authority for sanction. He however submitted that the mistake would not recur again. Following this, another notice was issued on 06.03.2024 stating that the

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39128 WP No. 20862 of 2024

¶32

reply of petitioner was not satisfactory and he was given three more days time to submit another reply. The petitioner again submitted reply dated 13.03.2024 contending that bills were sent for counter signature to the higher officers and that the same had not returned. As far as bills that were received by him, he claimed that he had sent it within 24 hours through tappal to the Accounts Division. He claimed that he was not the competent authority to sanction the bills and therefore, there was no delay on his part. The petitioner contends that without considering the reply submitted by him, the respondent No.2 had passed an order dated 07.06.2024 by which, service of the petitioner was discontinued. Following this, the respondent No.3 had addressed a letter dated 18.07.2024 discontinuing the service of the petitioner.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the said order, discontinuing the

¶34

service of the petitioner, the petitioner is before this Court in this writ petition.

¶35

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended as

¶36

follows:

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39128 WP No. 20862 of 2024

¶38

(i) that the petitioner has served the respondents for nearly 05 years and he is now sought to be terminated based on an allegation of misconduct. He submits that the respondents were therefore bound to conduct an enquiry before terminating his services. He submits that since the termination is a stigmatic, an enquiry was mandatory;

¶39

(ii) He also contends that as per the circular dated 18.05.2022, service of the petitioner could be terminated only after approval from the Director of National Health Mission. He therefore submitted that impugned order terminating the service of the petitioner warrants interference;

¶40

(iii) Besides this, he contends that the delay, if any, was not attributable to the petitioner, but was due to his superiors and therefore, the petitioner cannot be held responsible.

¶41

(iv) He claimed that petitioner had no role to play in the payment of bills.

¶42

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 has filed detailed statement of objections contending that the petitioner was appointed on contract basis in terms of the order of appointment dated 04.12.2018. This appointment was initially for a period of one year and could be renewed based on

¶43

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39128 WP No. 20862 of 2024

¶44

the performance of the petitioner. It is contended that due to non-payment of certain bills and in view of certain complaints, received against the petitioner regarding non-payment of bills, he was issued with a notice to show cause, as to why he did not process the bills for payment. The petitioner was issued with another notice, following which, he submitted a reply contending that he was not competent to sanction the bill. It is contended that the respondent No.2 not being satisfied with the reply submitted by the petitioner, passed an order dated 07.06.2024 discontinuing service of the petitioner. It is contended that a copy of the order terminating the services of the petitioner was sent to the Director, National Health Mission on 07.06.2024 and following this order, the impugned order dated 18.07.2024 was issued terminating service of the petitioner. It is contended that in the order terminating service of the petitioner, there is no allegation against the petitioner, which is stigmatic and therefore there was no need to conduct an enquiry. Be that as it may, it is contended that the petitioner was granted ample opportunity by issuing a notice and permitting him to submit a reply in justification of his innocence. After the reply submitted by petitioner was found

¶45

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:39128 WP No. 20862 of 2024

¶46

not satisfactory, the impugned order was passed. It is therefore, contended that there is no illegality committed by the respondent No.2 in discontinuing the service of the petitioner.

¶47

Learned Additional Government Advocate who represents respondent No.1 submits that the order terminating service of the petitioner was informed to the respondent No.1. He contended that continuation of the petitioner in service is solely based on the subjective satisfaction of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and if they are unhappy or not satisfactory with the services of the petitioner, they are entitled to take appropriate decision.

¶48

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 to 4 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

¶49

A perusal of the order appointing the petitioner on contract basis shows that he was appointed as a District Accounts Manager for a period of one year i.e., up to 31.03.2019. His appointment seems to have been extended

¶50

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:39128 WP No. 20862 of 2024

¶51

from time to time based on the satisfaction of the respondent Nos.2 to 4. It appears that certain complaints were received against the petitioner alleging that he had delayed the consideration of certain bills, which prompted the respondent No.2 to issue a notice dated 29.02.2024. The petitioner submitted a reply on 01.03.2024 stating that during the month of January, 2024 certain bills relating to providing nourished food in Devanahalli Taluk Hospital, were submitted. However, due to pressure of work, the bills were mixed up with other bills which he realised belatedly. He contended that it was due to the mistake of his staff that the bills were not brought to his notice at the earliest. He also claimed that when he enquired about the bills, his staff informed him that bills had to be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer, which he later found to be incorrect. He therefore sought pardon of the respondent No.2 and assured not to repeat such mistakes in future.

¶52

The respondent No.2 thereafter issued another notice dated 06.03.2024 which again was replied on the same lines. The respondent No.2 therefore informed the Director of National Health Mission about the conduct of the petitioner and sought permission to discontinue his service for the year 2024-

¶53

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:39128 WP No. 20862 of 2024

¶54

The respondent No.2 after two months of the said intimation to the National Health Mission, passed the impugned order discontinuing service of the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order discontinuing service of the petitioner shows that there was no stigma attached to the order of termination, but was a termination simpliciter. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of termination was stigmatic is not acceptable.

¶55

In so far as the other contention that service of the petitioner could not have been terminated without obtaining the permission of the Director of National Health Mission, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has now placed on record a communication dated 29.08.2024 addressed by the National Health Mission to the respondent No.2 permitting it to discontinue service of the petitioner. Ideally, the respondent No.2 must have waited for permission to be granted by the Director of National Health Mission before passing the impugned order. None the less, since the Director, National Health Mission was also taken into confidence and he was also of the opinion that service of petitioner cannot be continued, no

¶56

NC: 2024:KHC:39128 WP No. 20862 of 2024

¶57

10 -

¶58

error can be found in the order passed by the respondent No.2 discontinuing service of the petitioner.

¶59

In that view of the matter, there is no necessity to

¶60

interfere with the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 terminating/discontinuing service of the petitioner.

¶61

Hence, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶62

Sd/-

¶63

(R. NATARAJ)

¶64

JUDGE

¶65

HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5

Sri P Maruthi v. the Mission Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri P Maruthi v. the Mission Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ranganatha T S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramaswamy D Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v G Venkatesh Vs the District & Sessions Judge

Mr Prashantha D Vs the Deputy Inspector General of Police

Dr.Suma B Sathenahalli Vs the Government Dental College

Sri Kakasaheb Narasgouda Patil @ K N Patil Vs Managing Director Karnataka State Tourism Corporation Ltd.