NEELESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Archit Madhyan, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri Ashish Kumar Gupta, learned Advocate holding brief of Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing state respondents.

(2.) By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has assailed the order dtd. 11/1/2023 terminating the contract of appointment of the petitioner which has continued to operate ever since 13/7/2016.

(3.) The submission advanced by learned counsel for petitioner is that the charges that are sought to be levelled against the petitioner are absolutely vague, inasmuch as the recitals contained in the order impugned itself reflect that earlier some recommendation was made by the District Health Committee on 24/1/2018 but the respondents themselves decided not to terminate the contract of appointment of the petitioner. Now again on the basis of some enquiry report and the recommendation made by the District Level Committee on 31/12/2022 contract of appointment has come to be rescinded whereas as it is con-tended, the recommendations made by the District Health Committee does not refer to any specific charge except dereliction in discharge of duty by the petitioner and showing a little bit of disobedience in the matter of directions issued by the authorities but there is no specific incident recorded to the effect that petitioner committed any misconduct. It is further contended that the enquiry report which has been relied upon while passing the order independent of the recommendations made by the District Health Committee, the charge basically of extortion committed by the petitioner vide charge No. 2, was not found proved and the other charges related to the period 2016-17 relating to which earlier recommendations made by the District Health Committee in the year 2018 were acted upon so proceedings stood dropped.