Allahabad HC Quashes UP Govt’s Order Initiating Inquiry Against A Professor After Keeping Her Resignation Pending For 7 Months

The Allahabad High Court last week quashed an order of the State Medical Department initiating an inquiry against an associate professor working in a state medical college after keeping her resignation file pending for 7 months. Taking into account the plight of the professor of medicine, who resigned as she was facing difficulty in handling her child while continuing her job with the State Government, the bench of Justice Vivek Chaudhary stressed that any working woman, more particularly, a mother is required to be accommodated as far as possible. “Despite the best efforts of all still, how a working woman can be harassed even in this era is reflected in the facts of the present case,” the Court remarked in its order as it rapped the department for causing troubles for the petitioner/woman doctor. Consequently, the Court ordered the respondents to accept her resignation from the day she resigned (February 24, 2020) and grant her the benefit, which she is entitled to by treating her to be in service till 24.02.2020. The entire exercise has to be completed within two months. The case in brief The Court was essentially dealing with the case of Dr. Priyanka Garg, a doctor by qualification, who joined the state government job in September 2010 as a lecturer at a Medical college in Meerut & was subsequently promoted to the post of Associate Professor. In July 2019, the state government directed her to render her services at Saharanpur Medical College along with the previous place of posting of petitioner i.e., Meerut Medical College. Pursuant to this direction, she sent as many as 5 representations to the department expressing her inability in rendering the services and she even sought child-care leave on account of a medical issue of her daughter, who suffers from frequent Asthmatic attacks. However, neither her leave was sanctioned nor the salary was paid to her (for the period July 2019 to September 2019 & January 2020 to 24.02.2020.). Consequently, since no action was taken on her representations, she ultimately tendered her resignation on 24.02.2020, however, the same was not accepted. In fact, after a lapse of more than 7 months, an order was issued by respondent No.1 (Addl. Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Medical) on September 25, 2022, whereby an enquiry was initiated against her for being absent from duty. Further, by means of another impugned order dated September 26, 2020, the resignation tendered by the petitioner was rejected on the ground of public interest. Hence, challenging the departmental inquiry, she moved to the High Court. Court’s observations and order Having perused the records of the case, the Court wondered as to why didn’t the department accept her resignation and as to why did it keep the same pending for 7 months. The Court also observed that in case it was not possible for the department to grant any further leave to the petitioner, including leave without pay, it should have accepted the resignation of the petitioner. “This Court fails to understand what purpose is achieved by the respondents by keeping the petitioner in service from 24.02.2020 i.e. from the date of resignation onwards. During the said period, they could not appoint any other person in place of the petitioner, therefore, the work of the college continued to suffer and the public at large in no manner benefited. The entire issue could have been best served by accepting her resignation,” the Court added as it did not find it justified that the department-initiated inquiry against her. Consequently, setting aside the order initiating an inquiry, the Court ordered the department to accept her resignation wef 24.02.2020. In this regard, the Court also noted that the case was squarely covered by High Court 2022 ruling in the case of Dr. Sonal Sachadev Aurora v. State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Prin.Secy.Medical Educat. And Ors 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 134. Appearances Counsel for Petitioner: Gaurav Mehrotra, Abhineet Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C. Case Title – Dr.Priyanka Garg vs. State Of U.P.Thru.Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy.Medical And Ors. [WRIT - A No. - 23384 of 2020] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 39 Click Here To Read/Download Order

Allahabad HC Quashes UP Govt’s Order Initiating Inquiry Against A Professor After Keeping Her Resignation Pending For 7 Months

Sparsh Upadhyay

"Any working woman, more particularly, a mother is required to be accommodated as far as possible" : Allahabad High Court

Tags