Contract AYUSH Doctor Acquitted Soon After Custody-Based Termination Gets Re-Engagement Order From Odisha HC

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner’s acquittal after termination under Clause 9 entitled him to re-engagement as a contractual Medical Officer

The court held

The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the termination order dated 5 April 2023 and the rejection orders dated 13 February and 18 May 2024, and directed Opposite Parties Nos. 1 and 4 to allow the petitioner to continue under the original appointment order, with due renewal of the agreement, if any.

It also directed

The authorities were directed to complete the exercise within two months of receiving the judgment.

01Facts

The petitioner was appointed as a contractual Medical Officer, AYUSH, under the RBSK programme and posted to Parjanga CHC in 2014.

pp. 2–5, 9–13

Under Clause 9 of his agreement, his contractual services were terminated on 5 April 2023 after he had remained in custody for more than 48 hours in connection with a criminal case.

pp. 2–5, 9–13

He was acquitted on 18 May 2023.

pp. 2–5, 9–13

Following earlier proceedings in which the High Court directed consideration of his request for re-engagement, the authorities rejected that request on 13 February 2024 and 18 May 2024.

pp. 2–5, 9–13

The petitioner challenged the termination and both rejection orders in this writ petition.

pp. 2–5, 9–13

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner’s acquittal after termination under Clause 9 entitled him to re-engagement as a contractual Medical Officer

pp. 5–8, 13

ii.2. Whether the termination and the subsequent orders rejecting re-engagement should be quashed

pp. 8–13

03Law Applied

Clause 9 of the petitioner’s agreement provided for termination if he was detained in custody for more than 48 hours.

p. 9

The Court relied on Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, which explains that an acquittal does not automatically determine the outcome of service proceedings, but relief may be granted where the relevant circumstances make it unjust, unfair, or oppressive to maintain the adverse service action; the substance of the acquittal, rather than labels such as “benefit of doubt,” is material.

pp. 6–7

It also relied on Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar, reiterating that principle where the criminal and departmental matters are substantially similar, and State of Odisha v. Banshidhar Bariki, concerning the effect of a criminal court’s findings on departmental action in the circumstances of that case.

p. 8

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

p. 1

04Reasoning

The Court accepted that the petitioner’s termination was made under Clause 9 because he had remained in custody for more than 48 hours.

pp. 11–14

It considered that he was acquitted approximately six weeks after termination and concluded that, in the circumstances, he should have been re-engaged with renewal of his agreement.

pp. 11–14

Relying on the cited authorities, the Court held that he was eligible and entitled to re-engagement, and found the termination and subsequent refusals unsustainable.

pp. 11–14