Sri P Maruthi Vs the Mission Director

SRI. P MARUTHI AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, S/O PUTTASWAMY, WORKING AS DISTRICT ACCOUNTS MANAGER, OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT HEALTH OFFICER, NO.207, 2^ND FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, CHAPPARAKALLU, BEERASANDRA VILLAGE, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110. RESIDING AT 2^ND B LINK ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, TUMKUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT – 572 102.

¶12

…APPELLANT

¶13

(BY SRI. MUKKANNAPPA S B, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE MISSION DIRECTOR NATIONAL HEALTH MISSION, KARNATAKA, 1^ST FLOOR, MAGADI ROAD,

¶16

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:152-DB WA No. 1707 of 2024

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

BENGALURU – 560 021.

¶19

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYATH, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, CHAPPARAKALLU, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.

¶20

THE DISTRICT HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE OFFICER NO.207, 2^ND FLOOR, DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, CHAPPARAKALLU, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.

¶21

THE DISTRICT REPRODUCTIVE AND CHILD HEALTH OFFICER DISTRICT ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING, CHAPPARAKALLU, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 562 110.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA FOR R1; SRI. M S DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R2 – R4)

¶24

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21/09/2024 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN WP NO.20862/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION NO.20862/2024 AND ETC.,

¶25

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:152-DB WA No. 1707 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶31

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant impugning the judgment and order dated 21.09.2024 passed in W.P. No. 20862/2024.

¶32

The parties are referred to as per their ranking in the petition for the sake of convenience.

¶33

The petitioner had filed a petition challenging the order dated 07.06.2024 passed by the Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Panchayath, District Administrative Building, Bangalore Rural District and consequent order dated 18.07.2024 passed by the District Health and Family Welfare Officer whereby the petitioner's contractual employment which was initially for a period of four months i.e., up to 31.03.2019, came to be terminated and his services discontinued.

¶34

The petitioner was given the contractual appointment as District Accounts Manager for Bangalore Rural district in the National Health Mission. The initial appointment of the petitioner was only for a period of four months. It was

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:152-DB WA No. 1707 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

valid upto 31.03.2019. The petitioner was issued a notice dated 29.02.2024 for non-payment of certain bills. He submitted his reply on 01.03.2024 contending that the delay, if any was not attributable to him, but he had forwarded it to the next authority. He also submitted that mistake if any, committed by him would not be repeated in future.

¶39

But following the said reply to the notice, the petitioner was issued another notice on 06.03.2024 stating that the petitioner's reply was not found satisfactory and the petitioner was given 3 more days time to file his better reply. The petitioner again submitted his reply on 13.03.2024 contending that the bills were sent for counter signature to the higher officers. However, the same were not returned to him. He said that as soon as the bills were received by him, he had sent the same within 24 hours to the accounts division. It was his claim that the petitioner was not the competent authority to sanction the bills and therefore, there was no delay on his part. The petitioner contended that without considering

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:152-DB WA No. 1707 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

the reply submitted by him, respondent No. 2 had passed an order on 07.06.2024 whereby the petitioner's services had discontinued. Following the said order dated 07.06.2024, The District Health and Family Welfare Officer had addressed a letter dated 18.07.2024 to discontinue the services of the petitioner.

¶43

The Petitioner challenged the said order alleging that the petitioner had worked nearly five years and his services came to be terminated based on an allegation of misconduct. The respondents should have at least conducted a domestic inquiry before terminating his services. It was also stated that as the termination of the service was stigmatic, the enquiry was mandatory.

¶44

The petitioner contended that as per the circular dated 18.05.2024, the services of the petitioner could have been terminated only after the approval from the Director of National Health Mission, and as there was no approval from the director of National Health Mission, the termination was bad in law. On merit, it is submitted that the delay in clearing the bills should not have been

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:152-DB WA No. 1707 of 2024

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

attributed to the petitioner. But the delay was on the part of the superiors and the reasons for terminating the petitioner was also incorrect.

¶49

The learned Single Judge, however held that, the order discontinuing the employment of the petitioner was simpliciter and it was not stigmatic as contended by the petitioner. The petitioner's continuation in contractual employment was solely based on the subjective satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer of the Zilla Panchayath and the District Health and Family Welfare Officer as well as the District Productive and Child Health Officer.

¶50

The Petitioner was not in permanent employment and his employment was only contractual. It has also been held that there was approval of the termination of the services by the Director of the National Health Mission. Therefore, the learned single Judge did not find merit in the writ petition, and dismissed the petition by the impugned judgment and order dated 21.09.2024.

¶51

7 -

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:152-DB WA No. 1707 of 2024

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even in case of contractual employment, there has to be an inquiry before terminating the contractual employment.

¶55

We do not find merit in this submission inasmuch as very nature of the contractual employment is that it is as per the terms of the contract of employment. The petitioner has continued contractual employment after 31.03.2019 only at the pleasure of the appointing authority. He did not have any vested right to continue in the employment. As the services have not been found satisfactory by the appointing authority, the competent authority has decided to discontinue his engagement on contractual basis. The petitioner cannot claim the right for holding a domestic inquiry as he was not a permanent employee in the establishment of the respondents. But his services have been extended as contract employee. Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned single judge. Thus, the writ appeal stands dismissed.

¶56

NC: 2026:KHC:152-DB WA No. 1707 of 2024

¶57