IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI WRIT PETITION NO.8368 OF 2017 (S-DIS) BETWEEN DR.G PRASHANTHA SHETTY, S/O H BASSAVA SHETTY, AGED 32 YEARS, WORKING AS AYURVEDA CONTRACT DOCTOR (NOW UNDER DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE) GOVERNMENT AYURVED HOSPITAL, DODDABALLAPUR, R/A KAKTHOTA DODMANE, MADHUMATA POST, ULLURU-11, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-576219. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI BASAVARAJA PATEL G K, ADVOCATE ) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DISTRICT COMMISSIONER/PRESIDENT SELECTION COMMITTEE, D C OFFICE RURAL DISTRICT, PODIYAM BLOCK, V V TOWER, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE DISTRICT AYUSH OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, DHANWANTHARI ROAD, ANANDARAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 009.
4. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF AYUSH, DHANWANTHARI ROAD, ANANDA RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE – 560 009. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SREEDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD:16.12.2016 AND IMPUGNED PUBLICATION DTD:14.2.2017 PASSED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE-F & G RESPECTIVELY AND PERUSE AND QUASH THE SAME AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL. NON-APPLICATION OF MIND AND VIOLATIVE OF ARTICLE 14 AND 16 OF THE COSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Petitioner has questioned the validity of Annexures-F and G dated 16.12.2016 and 14.02.2017 respectively, by which the petitioner’s services has been terminated on account of he remaining unauthorized absent in terms of conditions of contract appointment order, at Sl.Nos.5 and 6. Further inviting application from the eligible candidates for further contract appointment, which was notified on 14.02.2017, which are under challenge.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that remaining unauthorized absent by the petitioner is on account of certain illness. Therefore, petitioner should have been given an opportunity to appraise the competent authority explaining the reasons for remaining unauthorized absent. It was also submitted that the persons, who are appointed on contract basis have been appointed for further period, whereas the petitioner has been singled out.
3. On the other hand, learned HCGP for the respondents has submitted that on 11.11.2016, for remaining unauthorized absent, show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and on receipt of the petitioner’s explanation, which was not satisfactory, and the fact that the patients were suffering in the General Hospital for want of Doctor, whereby there was a disruption in the General Hospital due to unauthorized absence of the petitioner. Further, the conditions stipulated in the order of contract appointment has been taken into consideration. Hence, no interference is called for insofar as Annexures-F and G.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
5. Undisputed facts are that the petitioner is appointed on contract basis for a particular tenure. During the tenure of contract appointment, he remained unauthorized absent. In such an event, appointing authority had already reserved his right to terminate the contract appointee in terms of condition Nos.5 and 6. That apart, patients in General Hospital suffered due to the unauthorized absence of the petitioner, who was serving as a Doctor on contract basis.
6. Perusal of the order of termination, it is evident that petitioner’s appointment was on contract basis. He remained unauthorized absent, whereby inconvenience has caused to the General Hospital, in the absence of the Doctor, patients were suffering in not getting treatment. The conditions stipulated in the order of contract appointment at Sl.Nos.5 and 6 are crystal clear, which has been accepted by the petitioner, and the petitioner is bound by the terms and conditions imposed in the order of contract appointment.
7. In view of these facts and circumstances, no ground is made out to interfere with Annexures-F and G. Accordingly, petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE BSR