'Punjab Officials Stooped So Low' : Supreme Court Finds Disciplinary Punishment Against Doctor Vengeful, Sets Aside Penalty

The Supreme Court on Monday (January 20) granted relief to a retired Senior Medical Officer who was in service of the Punjab Government, by setting aside the order of penalty imposed on him in a disciplinary proceeding.The Court observed that the disciplinary proceedings were nothing but a ruse to wreak vengeance against the appellant for having dragged high officials of the Government of Punjab to the High Court to obtain his legitimate monetary dues.“This happens to be a case where certain officials of the GoP have stooped too low to punish a senior doctor, on the verge of retirement, for no better reason than that he had dared to take on the mighty executive in a court of law," observed the Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan.The Bench made these observations while allowing the appeal filed by a Senior Medical Officer, who was relieved of his duty and made to retire eleven days before his retirement.For background, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him for committing misconduct. Among others, the grounds were proceeding on leave without sanction and failing to participate in the pulse polio programme. Consequent to these proceedings, the appellant was made to retire. The Disciplinary Authority ordered a cut of 2% pension with permanent.Pursuant to this, the Health and Family Welfare Department ordered a pension cut. Subsequently, the Division Bench of the High Court modified this order to a 2% pension cut for a period of five years. Against this background, the matter reached the Apex Court.At the outset, the Court reiterated that an administrative order punishing a delinquent employee is not reviewed unless there is a violation of natural justice principles or the impugned order is ex facie arbitrary or capricious.“After all, public servants to whom Article 311 of the Constitution apply do enjoy certain procedural safeguards, enforcement of which by the high court can legitimately be urged by such servants depending upon the extent of breach that is manifestly demonstrated.,” the Court said.Drawing inspiration from landmark cases, including the recent case of Madhayamam Broadcasting Ltd. v. Union of India, observed that these principles also include procedural fairness before holding a public servant guilty of misconduct.“To test whether interference is warranted, this Court has laid down that the scrutiny ought to be confined to finding out whether the disciplinary proceedings have been conducted fairly; if not, an inference can be drawn that this has caused prejudice to the charged employee.”Building on this, the Court adverted to the facts of this case. While acknowledging that leave is regulated by rules that need to be adhered to by each public servant, the Court found no such circumstance to hold the appellant guilty of serious misconduct. The Court noted the submission of prosecution that the Civil Surgeon had refused to sanction leave. Apart from that, the appellant was also telephonically informed about the same.However, the Court concluded that there was no record of the Civil Surgeon's refusal to sanction leave. So far as not participating in the pulse polio programme and thus also violating the Election Commission's directions, the Court said:“It is the clear finding of the Inquiry Officer, based on the evidence on record, that the appellant was not assigned any duty in connection with election duty and pulse polio programme during the period he wished to avail leave to attend court proceedings before the High Court. Insofar as defiance of Election Commission's directions by the appellant are concerned, no such written directions were part of the documentary evidence led before the Inquiry Officer… Rather curiously, the Inquiry Officer resorted to ingenuity to hold the appellant guilty.”Imperatively, at this stage, the Court pointed out that the appellant had submitted a detailed response to the inquiry report. However, the same was dismissed by a single sentence. Finding the same to be unacceptable, the Court ruled that this was not a fair procedure.The Court also observed that issuance of limited notice does not fetter the court's powers to enlarge the scope of the petition and grant justice to the parties. Elaborating, the Court said that the observation, while issuing the notice, cannot limit the court's jurisdiction to consider the controversy.“If the court seized of the petition/appeal considers that the justice of the case before it demands enlargement of the scope, notwithstanding that a limited notice had been issued earlier, the court's powers are not fettered particularly when enforcement of any Fundamental/Constitutional right is urged by the party approaching it.,” Moving forward, the Court also highlighted that though the impugned order had clear findings in favour of the appellant, it did not interfere with the charges.“In our considered opinion, the tenor of the impugned order does suggest that the Division Bench found the appellant to have...

'Punjab Officials Stooped So Low' : Supreme Court Finds Disciplinary Punishment Against Doctor Vengeful, Sets Aside Penalty

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags