Contractual NHM staff termination stands where no breach of prescribed inquiry procedure is established.

The petitioners were contractual Nursing Officers under the National Health Mission at the District Hospital (Mental Health Unit), Durg.

Following a patient’s death, an inquiry was conducted and the petitioners’ services were terminated by orders dated 26 June 2026.

They challenged the orders, alleging non-compliance with Clauses 33.1–33.5 of the Human Resource Policy, 2018, including failure to conduct a fair inquiry and consider their defence, and contending that the Collector—not the CMHO—had conducted the inquiry.

The State maintained that the inquiry committee was duly constituted and that the Collector, as Chairperson of the District Health Society, was competent to act.

1. Whether the petitioners’ termination orders were passed in violation of the inquiry procedure prescribed by Clause 33 of the Human Resource Policy, 2018.

2. Whether the Collector was competent to conduct the inquiry and pass the termination orders, rather than the CMHO.

Clause 26 of the Human Resource Policy, 2018 places National Health Mission posts under the control of the District Health Society, whose Governing Body is chaired by the Collector.

Clause 33.1 provides for inquiry into complaints against an officer or employee, while Clause 33.2 requires the appointing authority to constitute a committee to conduct an inquiry.

The Court applied these provisions to assess the applicable procedure and the Collector’s authority.

The Court found that the petitioners’ services were governed by the 2018 Policy and that the relevant posts were under the District Health Society, chaired by the Collector.

It accepted the State’s account that an inquiry committee had been constituted, an inquiry conducted, and the termination orders passed thereafter.

The petitioners had not produced material demonstrating breach of Clause 33 or a jurisdictional error.

The Court also rejected the challenge to the Collector’s competence, reasoning that the Collector’s position as Chairperson of the Society supported the authority to conduct the inquiry.

Both writ petitions were dismissed.