WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 1 of 16

HIGH COURT OF JAMM U &KASHMIR AND LADAKHAT

JAMMU

Reserved on: 29.01.2026

Pronounced on: 06.02.2026

Uploaded on: 06.02.2026

Whether the operative

part or full judgment is

pronounced:Full

WP(C) No. 2950/2024

Himani Sharma

...PETITIONER(S)

Through: - Mr. Antriksh Sharma, Advocate.

Vs.

U T OF J&K & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

Through: - Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

1) The petitioner has challenged order No. 291 of 2024

dated 12.01.2024 issued by respondent No. 2 whereby the

contractual services of the petitioner as Mid-Level Health

Provider (hereinafter to be referred to as “MLHP”) under

National Health Mission has been terminated with

immediate effect.

2) Briefly stated case of the petitioner is that in terms of

order No. 10 of 2021 dated 16.04.2021 issued by

respondent No. 2, she was engaged as MLHP with her

proposed place of posting at HWC -SC Kagrore block

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 2 of 16

Basholi district Kathua. It appears that the petitioner

pursuant to the aforesaid order joined her place of posting

whereafter she lodged a complaint with Deputy

Commissioner, Kathua with regard to lack of

infrastructural facilities and non-cooperation of the staff

at her place of posting.

3) On 05.07.2021, respondent No. 4 sought an

explanation from the petitioner for her absence from

duties. On 24.08.2021, respondent No. 4 again sought an

explanation from the petitioner for not having attended the

monthly meeting that was held in the office of said

respondent on 24.08.2021. Thereafter a communication

was addressed by respondent No. 4 to the petitioner

whereby a final explanation was sought from her

regarding her conduct and summary of allegations was

incorporated in the said communication. As per these

allegations, on 05.07.2021 the petitioner was found to be

absent from duty when respondent No. 4 visited her place

of posting. It is further alleged in the said communication

that when respondent No. 4 visited the place of posting of

the petitioner on 12.08.2021 she was again found to be

absent from duty w.e.f., 07.08.2021. Another allegation

recorded in the said communication is that the petitioner

had tampered with attendance register. It has also been

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 3 of 16

alleged that the petitioner has always been irresponsible

towards her duties and that she had not responded to the

phone calls of respondent No. 4 during covid -19

pandemic.

4) The record shows that another explanation was

sought by respondent No. 4 from the petitioner on

31.03.2022 for not attending the meeting on 31.03.2022.

5) It seems that respondent No. 4, in terms of order

dated 05.07.2022, constituted a committee of five

members to conduct preliminary enquiry in respect of the

allegations leveled against the petitioner. The committee

recorded the statements of the witnesses and concluded

that the petitioner has consistently been absent from work

and she has tampered with the attendance register. It

was also concluded that behavior of the petitioner has not

been appropriate towards her staff members and that she

has been careless, irresponsible and negligent towards her

duties. The committee also opined that there is no hope of

petitioner mending her ways.

6) On 02.08.2022, another show cause notice was

issued by respondent No. 4 to the petitioner for not having

furnished monthly reports. It seems that the petitioner

responded to the show cause notice informing respondent

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 4 of 16

No. 4 that she is not attending her duties regularly

because of medical reasons. She also forwarded copies of

prescriptions issued by Hindurao Hospital, Delhi.

7) On 30.09.2022, again explanation was sought from

the petitioner for not attending the monthly meeting and

for not reporting on NCD portal. On 29.11.2022,

respondent No. 4 again sought an explanation from the

petitioner informing her that on the said date, while she

visited her place of posting, the petitioner was found

absent from duty w.e.f., 26

th to 29

th of November, 2022.

Respondent No. 4 also addressed a communication to

respondent No. 3 on the same date informing him that

salary of the petitioner has been withheld because of her

unauthorized absence from duty and also because of her

unsatisfactory performance.

8) It seems that another enquiry was conducted by a

three member committee in respect of the conduct of the

petitioner and on 15.12.2022, the Committee framed its

report. As per the report, when the Committee visited the

place of posting of the petitioner on 15.12.2022, she was

found absent from duty and her whereabouts were not

known to the staff. It was also found that the petitioner is

habitual of remaining absent from duty. The Committee

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 5 of 16

also found that the petitioner has not made even a single

entry in her NCD ID, as such, her performance on NCD

portal is NIL. The Committee, upon enquiry, found that

the petitioner has not been punctual towards her duty and

it was also reported by the staff that the furniture of the

office had been damaged by the petitioner. The staff also

complained that the petitioner misbehaves with them.

Similar complaints were also received from the general

public.

9) After the holding of enquiry, respondent No. 3, vide

his communication dated 10.01.2023, forwarded the

enquiry report along with documents to respondent No. 2

with a recommendation to take necessary action in the

matter. Pursuant to the aforesaid communication of

respondent No. 3, respondent No. 2 issued show cause

notice dated 17.01.2023 to the petitioner seeking

explanation as to why action as warranted under rules be

not taken against her.

10) Reply to the aforesaid show cause notic e was

submitted by the petitioner vide her communication dated

24.01.2023. In her reply, the petitioner denied the

allegations with regard to her rude behavior and

unprofessional conduct. It was contended by the

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 6 of 16

petitioner in her reply that two enquiries conducted

against her are biased and the conclusions made by the

enquiry committees are without any evidence. It was

submitted by the petitioner that she had informed her

immediate superiors on numerous occasions in writing

about the lack of infrastructure in the office and lack of

facilities in the hospital but no action was taken by her

superior officers. She denied the allegation that she was

responsible for causing damage to the furniture.

According to the petitioner, she had informed her senior

officers telephonically as well as through whatsapp

messages about the reasons for her absence from duty

which was due to issues relating to transport and her

health.

11) It seems that respondent No. 2 had asked

respondent No. 3 to monitor the behavior of the petitioner,

however, vide communication dated 02.03.2023

respondent No. 3 informed respondent No. 2 that there

has been no improvement in the performance and attitude

of the petitioner. Updated work and conduct report with

respect to the petitioner was forwarded by respondent

No. 3 to respondent No. 2 from time to time vide his

communications dated 13.10.2023 and 28.11.2023.

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 7 of 16

12) It seems that another committee of five members was

constituted for submitting a report with regard to the

status of petitioner. A fresh report was submitted by the

Committee after its visit to HWC SC Kagrore on

25.11.2023 in which it was reported that working of the

petitioner has not improved and her professional

behaviour with staff members and patients has not

improved. It was also reported that the petitioner is not

conducting daily programmes and is not reporting the

same on the portal. The Committee also found that PRI

members and local population are not satisfied with the

behavior of the petitioner as she is not well behaved and

punctual. Accordingly, the committee members

recommended suitable necessary action against the

petitioner.

13) Pursuant to the aforesaid report of the Committee,

respondent No. 2 proceeded to issue impugned order

dated 12.02.2024 thereby term inating the contractual

services of the petitioner. It seems that the petitioner,

through her counsel, had served a legal notice upon the

respondents for reconsideration of the matter but no

action was taken by the respondents on the said legal

notice.

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 8 of 16

14) The petitioner has challenged the impugned

termination order on the grounds that the same has been

passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to

her. It has been contended that the petitioner was not

associated with the enquiry proceedings and she was not

allowed to cross-examine the witnesses and to put up a

proper defence. It has also been contended that

respondent No. 4 had issued a certificate of good character

in favour of the petitioner on 26.09.2023, as such, the

allegations that behavior and conduct of the petitioner has

not been up to the mark stands contradicted. It has been

further contended that the petitioner was harassed by the

respondents by serving show cause notices upon her

which resulted in physical and mental harassment to her.

It has been contended that because the impugned order of

termination is stigmatic in nature, as such, without

holding a regular departmental enquiry, it was not open to

the respondents to terminate her engagement.

15) The respondents have contested the petition by filing

the reply in which they have contended that the petitioner

has been given fair opportunity of being heard and as

many as three enquiries have been conducted by the

respondents before passing the impugned order. It has

been submitted that repeated show cause notices have

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 9 of 16

been issued to the petitioner to explain her conduct but

most of the times, she failed to respond to these show

cause notices. According to the respondents, the

petitioner, being a contractual employee , cannot be

equated with a government employee holding a civil post

and claim that she cannot be terminated without a regular

departmental enquiry.

16) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and

perused the record of the case including the record

produced by the respondents.

17) As is clear from the pleadings of the parties, the

petitioner has been served with repeated show cause

notices by the respondents and preliminary enquiries into

her conduct have been held , on as many as three

occasions before taking impugned action against her. It

is, however, clear from the record produced by the

respondents that the petitioner has not been afforded an

opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses who have

deposed before the enquiry committees. The petitioner

has been permitted to respond to the final show cause

notice and to project her side of the story. The

respondents have considered her reply and after feeling

dissatisfied with the explanation tendered by the

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 10 of 16

petitioner, they have proceeded to pass the impugned

order of termination.

18) The question that falls for determination is as to

whether the petitioner, who is a contractual employee, is

entitled to be subjected to a regular departmental enquiry

before terminating her services particularly when the

order of her termination is stigmatic in nature.

19) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed

reliance upon the judgment of Supreme Court of India in

the case of U.P State Road Transport Corporation & Ors

Vs. Brijesh Kumar and anr, 2024 SCC Online SC 2282,

and judgments of this Court in the cases of Feroz Ahmad

Sheikh & Ors Vs. UT of J&K & ors [WP(C) No.

2260/2022 decided on 16.12.2023] and Dr. Shazia Salam

Vs. UT of J&K & Ors [WP(C) No. 494/2023 decided on

01.08.2025] to press home his contention that because

the impugned order p assed against the petitioner is

stigmatic and punitive in nature, therefore, she was

entitled to an opportunity of defending the

accusations/allegations made against her in a full-fledged

enquiry.

20) In the above context, it is to be noted that the

petitioner was not working as a regular employee against a

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 11 of 16

civil post but she was engaged on contractual basis. As

per the format of agreement relating to contract of

appointment of the petitioner, a copy whereof has been

produced by learned counsel for the petitioner during the

course of hearing, the contract was valid for one year

extendable upto not more than three years subject to

satisfactory performance. The safeguards available to an

employee appointed on a civil post as contained in Article

311 of the Constitution of India and the Jammu and

Kashmir Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal)

Rules, 1956 are not available to the petitioner. The terms

and conditions of engagement of the petitioner are

governed by the contract of appointment executed by the

parties.

21) As per Clause (4) of the service agreement, the

employer has a right to rescind the contract before

completion if the performance of the employee has been

found to be unsatisfactory. As per Clause (16) of the said

agreement, the engagement of the employee would stand

terminated if he/she absents from duty for seven working

days without taking permission from the competent

authority. As per Clause (22) of the agreement, employer

has a right to terminate the services of an employee if

he/she has committed irregularities and impropriety of

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 12 of 16

administrative and financial nature, negligence of care,

unsafe practices, inefficiency and insincerity, professional

misconduct or false reporting of information or fabrication

of date in the maintained re cords or any other

inappropriate action. Thus, it is clear that services of the

petitioner were terminable at any time on the basis of her

poor performance, negligence, inefficiency, insincerity or

professional misconduct.

22) The respondents have, before te rminating the

services of the petitioner, constituted Committees of

officers as many as three times and on all three occasions,

the Committee of officers after visiting the place of posting

of the petitioner and after scrutinizing the records and

recording the statements of the witnesses came to the

conclusion that the petitioner is in the habit of being

absent from her duty unauthorizedly, her behavior

towards staff, local people and the patients has not been

up to the mark and she has even t ampered with the

attendance register. The Committees also found that the

petitioner has not uploaded the requisite reports on the

portal and her performance has not been satisfactory.

23) Although the petitioner in her reply to the show

cause notice has denied most of these allegations but

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 13 of 16

nonetheless she has admitted that she has not attended

the office on several occasions. As per her version, her

absence was due to ill health and due to transport issues.

She had also issues with the infrastructural facilities at

her place of posting. While illness can be a justified

ground for not attending the duties provided the same is

of such a nature as would prevent an employee to attend

his/her duties, but intimation in this regard has to be

given to the superior officers. However, in the instant

case, it appears that the petitioner has not cared even to

intimate her superior officers before proceeding on leave.

Issues relating to transport and infrastructure can never

form a justified ground for not attending the duties. Thus,

from the reply to the show cause notice furnished by the

petitioner, it can safely be inferred that she has admitted

the allegation regarding her unauthorized absence from

the duty.

24) It is for the aforesaid reasons that her reply to the

show cause notice has not been found to be satisfactory

by respondent No. 2, who has proceeded to issue the

impugned order of termination, which is perfectly in

accordance with the terms of contract of service executed

by the petitioner. Once respondent No. 2 had materi al

before him to show that performance of the petitioner was

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 14 of 16

not satisfactory, he was well within his powers to pass the

impugned order of termination. In fact while joining her

service, the petitioner has executed an undertaking

wherein it was agreed by her that in case of unsatisfactory

performance, the respondents would have a right to

terminate her services prior to the expiry of the

contractual period without assigning any reason and

without giving one month’s prior notice to her.

25) So far as the contention of the petitioner that she

was entitled to be subjected to a regular departmental

enquiry is concerned, in this context it is to be noted that

a person appointed on contractual basis does not enjoy

the protection of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India

for the simple reason that he/she is not a member of civil

service of the Union or an All India Service or a civil

service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a

State. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union

Public Service Commission Vs. Girish Jayanti Lal

Vaghela, (2006) 2 SCC 482. Therefore, a contractual

employee is not entitled to the protection, which is

available to an employee who is in service of Union or

State on a civil post.

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 15 of 16

26) Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the

petitioner on the judgments delivered by this Court in the

cases of Feroz Ahmad Sheikh and Dr. Shazia Salam

(supra) is misconceived for the reason that in those cases,

there was clear-cut violation of principles of natural

justice while passing the termination order against the

writ petitioners therein. It is in those circumstances that

the writ petitioners, in those petitions, succeeded before

the Court. In the instant case, the respondents have

followed the principles of natural justice by issuing

repeated show cause notices to the petitioner and giving

her not only the opportunity of hearing but also of

improving her conduct. As many as three enquiries were

conducted by the respondents bef ore passing the

impugned order, which goes on to show that the

respondents have been more than fair in dealing with the

case of the petitioner.

27) For what has been discussed hereinbefore, it is clear

that termination of the petitioner from her services has

been effected in accordance with the conditions of her

engagement after following the principles of natural justice

and after considering her reply to the show cause notice in

the light of the enquiry reports. The contention of the

petitioner that she was entitled to a full-fledged regular

WP(C) No.2950/2024 Page 16 of 16

enquiry with a right to participate in the preliminary

enquiry is misconceived having regard to the nature of

engagement of the petitioner.

28) The petition, therefore, lacks merit and is,

accordingly, dismissed. The respondents shall, however,

release the unpaid/withheld salary, if any, to t he

petitioner for the period during which she has performed

her duties.

29) The record be returned to the learned counsel of the

respondents.

(Sanjay Dhar)

Judge

JAMMU

06.02.2026

NARESH/SECY

Whether the order is reportable: Yes

Whether the order is speaking: Yes